Supplying technical property descriptions for stamp duty assessment does not constitute an impermissible modification of a decree.

The litigation originates from a consent decree passed by a Division Bench on May 22, 1997, based on the "Mittal Settlement," which partitioned various properties among the parties

While the settlement identified the properties, it lacked technical descriptions and title deed details, leading the Department to struggle with drawing up the decree and the Collector to fail in assessing the requisite stamp duty

Previously, Defendant No. 1’s application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to modify the decree was rejected by the High Court in 1999 and affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2009

However, a subsequent coordinate Bench order dated April 3, 2019 (which went unchallenged), held that a party cannot be left remediless and directed the Department to complete the decree using particulars from the pleadings and records

Defendant No. 1 filed the current application and a supplementary affidavit dated February 10, 2026, providing the necessary technical details of the properties to enable the Collector to assess the stamp duty

1. Whether the court can permit the introduction of technical property details via a supplementary affidavit for stamp duty assessment despite the previous rejection of an application to modify the decree under Section 152 CPC.

2. Whether the current application is barred by the doctrine of merger or constitutes an impermissible "improvement" of the original pleadings.

The Court applied Section 152 of the CPC, which governs the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments and decrees

It further relied on Order 20 Rule 6 of the CPC and Chapter 16 Rules 1 and 11 of the Calcutta High Court Original Side Rules, which mandate the drawing up of a decree following a judgment and allow for "short recitals" to be added by the Registrar from the material on record

The court also addressed the Doctrine of Merger as established in Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala

the principle against re-litigating rejected reliefs as per State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey

The Court distinguished the present application from the earlier failed attempt under Section 152 CPC. It reasoned that while Section 152 could not be used to substantively alter the decree, the current prayer sought the "drawing up and completion" of the decree to ensure the parties could enjoy its fruits, a right recognized by the coordinate Bench in 2019

The Court found that the technical details provided in the supplementary affidavit were not "new" or an "improvement" of the case, but were existing details within the pleadings intended to facilitate the Collector’s valuation for stamp duty

Consequently, the doctrine of merger did not apply because the current objective—administrative completion and registration of the decree—differed from the prior attempt at judicial modification

The Court emphasized that procedural hurdles should not prevent the execution of a consent decree that the parties have acted upon

The Court directed the parties to file the requisite Form No. 1 with the Collector within a fortnight, and the Collector was ordered to assess the stamp duty and submit a report to the High Court within four weeks. All prayers for a stay of this order by the opposing parties were rejected