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

This matter pertains to the drawing up and completion of a consent decree passed on May 22, 1997, by a Division Bench

The decree was based on the "Mittal Settlement," which partitioned properties among the parties but lacked detailed technical descriptions or title deed references

Consequently, the Collector was unable to assess the stamp duty required for the registration and finalization of the decree

Previously, an application by Defendant No. 1 to amend the decree under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was rejected by the High Court in 1999, a decision affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2009

However, a subsequent order dated April 3, 2019, by a coordinate Bench ruled that a party cannot be left remediless and directed the Department to draw up the decree by collecting particulars from pleadings and records

In the present application (GA/5/2023), Defendant No. 1 provided technical details of the properties via a supplementary affidavit to enable the Collector to assess the valuation

1. Whether the technical details of properties provided via a supplementary affidavit can be utilized to assess stamp duty for the completion of a decree, despite the previous rejection of a Section 152 CPC amendment application

2. Whether the doctrine of merger or the principle of finality of litigation bars the current relief sought for the drawing up and registration of the decree

The court considered Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments or decrees

It applied Chapter XVIA Rule 11 of the Original Side Rules of the Calcutta High Court, which permits the Registrar to include short recitals and collect particulars from materials on record to draw up a decree

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

finality of rejected prayers as per State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey

The Court distinguished between an application to alter a decree under Section 152 CPC (which was previously rejected) and an application to draw up and complete a decree to ensure the parties enjoy its fruits

The Court observed that the 2019 coordinate Bench order, which attained finality, expressly empowered the Department to incorporate particulars from the records to complete the decree

Regarding the doctrine of merger, the Court held it was inapplicable because the current prayer was for the execution of administrative steps (valuation and registration) rather than a substantive modification of the 1997 decree

Furthermore, the Court found that providing technical details (title deeds) already present in the litigation history did not constitute an "improvement" of the case but was a necessary step for the Collector to fulfill his statutory duty

The Court directed the parties to file the requisite Form No. 1 with the technical details within a fortnight. The Collector was directed to assess the stamp duty and submit a report to the High Court within four weeks

The prayers for a stay made by the opposing parties were rejected