Technical details from records are permissible for stamp duty assessment despite prior rejection of Section 152 CPC amendment.

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

However, the decree lacked detailed technical descriptions and title deed references, leading the Department to struggle with its completion and the Collector to report an inability to assess the necessary stamp duty

Defendant No. 1’s previous application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to modify the decree was rejected by the High Court in 1999 and the Supreme Court in 2009, on the grounds that the request did not meet the criteria for correcting clerical errors

Subsequently, a coordinate Bench on April 3, 2019, held that the parties should not be left remediless and directed the Department to draw up the decree by collecting particulars from pleadings and record materials

Defendant No. 1 filed the present application and a supplementary affidavit dated February 10, 2026, providing technical property details to facilitate stamp duty assessment

1. Whether the provision of technical property details for stamp duty assessment constitutes an impermissible modification of a decree previously finalized by the Supreme Court

2. Whether the technical details provided in a supplementary affidavit amount to an improper "improvement" of the original application or are merely descriptive of existing pleadings

3. Whether the doctrine of merger prevents the Court from granting the relief sought due to the previous dismissal of the Section 152 CPC application

The Court primarily applied Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC regarding the court’s inherent powers and the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes

It relied on Order 20 Rule 6 of the CPC and Chapter 16 Rule 11 of the Calcutta High Court Original Side Rules, which mandate the drawing up of a decree following a judgment

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

It further considered the prohibition against reviving rejected prayers from State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey & Ors.

the limitations on improving a case via 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 Section 152 CPC proceedings.

While Section 152 was previously deemed inapplicable for altering the decree, the current prayer seeks the drawing up and completion of the decree to satisfy registration requirements

The Court noted that a party cannot be left remediless and must be allowed to enjoy the "fruits of the decree"

It held that the technical details provided in the supplementary affidavit were not "new" evidence but were culled from existing title deeds and pleadings already on record

Therefore, the doctrine of merger did not apply because the nature of the relief—completing the decree for stamp duty purposes—differed from the previously rejected attempt to correct the decree’s substance

The Court concluded that the Department is permitted to add short recitals from record materials to ensure the decree is registrable

The Court directed the parties to file the requisite Form No. 1 (as requested by the Collector) containing the technical details within a fortnight

Upon receipt, the Collector is ordered to assess the stamp duty and submit a report to the High Court within four weeks

Prayers for a stay of this order by the appellant and other defendants were rejected