Supplying technical property descriptions for stamp duty assessment does not impermissibly modify a final decree.

The underlying suit for declaration and cancellation of the "Mittal Settlement" resulted in a consent decree passed by a Division Bench on May 22, 1997.

While the settlement detailed property allotments, it lacked technical descriptions (e.g., plot numbers, boundaries), preventing the Collector from assessing stamp duty for the registration and completion of the decree.

Previously, Defendant No. 1 sought to amend the decree under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC); however, this was rejected by a Division Bench in 1999 and affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2009 on the grounds that the request did not meet the criteria for correcting clerical or arithmetical errors.

In 2019, a coordinate bench ruled that the Department could add short recitals to the decree by collecting particulars from the pleadings and records to ensure the parties could enjoy the fruits of the decree.

Defendant No. 1 filed the present application (GA/5/2023) with a supplementary affidavit providing technical details and title deeds to facilitate the Collector's assessment of stamp duty.

Respondents No. 2 and 3 opposed the application, arguing it was barred by the doctrine of merger and res judicata.

1. Whether the provision of technical property details via a supplementary affidavit for the purpose of stamp duty assessment is barred by the previous rejection of an amendment application under Section 152 CPC.

2. Whether the doctrine of merger or principles against improving a case through supplementary affidavits prevent the court from granting the requested relief.

The court considered Section 152 of the CPC, which allows for the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments or decrees.

It also applied Chapter XVI, Rule 11 of the Original Side Rules of the Calcutta High Court, which permits the Registrar to include necessary recitals when drawing up a decree.

The court addressed the "doctrine of merger" as discussed in Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr.

The principle of finality of litigation from State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey & Ors.

Additionally, it referenced Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Jessop and Co. Ltd. Staff Association & Ors. regarding the limitations of improving a case through supplementary affidavits.

The court reasoned that the prior 1999 and 2009 decisions specifically addressed the narrow scope of Section 152 CPC (clerical errors) and did not preclude the parties from seeking administrative completion of the decree.

The bench emphasized the 2019 coordinate bench order, which held that a party cannot be left remediless and that the Department has the authority to incorporate technical particulars from the existing case records to complete the decree.

Regarding the doctrine of merger, the court found it inapplicable because the current prayer is for the "drawing up and completion" of the decree rather than a "correction" of an error under Section 152.

The court held that the technical details provided in the supplementary affidavit were not "new" evidence or an "improvement" of the original case, as they were derived from existing title deeds and pleadings already part of the record.

Thus, providing these details was a necessary step to satisfy the Collector's requirements for stamp duty assessment.

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