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

A consent decree was passed by a Division Bench on May 22, 1997, based on the "Mittal Settlement" for the partition of properties

While the settlement identified the allotments, it lacked technical descriptions (title deed details) required for the Collector to assess stamp duty for the decree’s registration

Previously, an application by Defendant No. 1 to alter the decree under Section 152 of the CPC 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, directed the Department to draw up the decree, allowing for "short recitals" to be added from pleadings and materials on record

Following a Collector's report dated November 28, 2025, stating an inability to assess duty without technical particulars, Defendant No. 1 filed a supplementary affidavit in February 2026 providing the necessary title details

1. Whether the technical property details provided in the supplementary affidavit could be used for the assessment of stamp duty without constituting an illegal modification of the 1997 decree

2. Whether the doctrine of merger and the finality of earlier litigation (under Section 152 CPC) barred the relief sought in the current application

The court applied Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which governs the correction of clerical or mathematical errors in judgments

It further relied on Chapter XVI, Rule 11 of the Original Side Rules of the Calcutta High Court, which empowers the Registrar to include necessary recitals when drawing up a decree

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

the principle against reviving rejected prayers established in State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey & Ors.

it considered the rule against improving a case through supplementary affidavits as per Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Jessop and Co. Ltd. Staff Association & Ors.

The Court distinguished the present application from the earlier proceedings under Section 152 CPC.

While Section 152 was previously found inapplicable for amending the decree, the court noted that the 2019 coordinate Bench order—which was never challenged—specifically mandated the Department to draw up the decree using particulars from the record

The court reasoned that the technical details in the supplementary affidavit were not "new" improvements but were culled from existing pleadings and title deeds already relevant to the "Mittal Settlement"

The analysis emphasized that a party cannot be left "remediless" or unable to "enjoy the fruits of the decree" due to administrative hurdles in valuation and registration

Therefore, providing the Collector with technical data to facilitate stamp duty assessment was a procedural necessity for completing the decree, not an alteration of its judicial substance

It 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 prayer for a stay of this order was rejected