Technical property descriptions from the record may be supplied for stamp duty assessment to facilitate decree completion.

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

While the settlement detailed property allotments, it lacked technical descriptions (title deed specifics), leading the Collector to report an inability to assess stamp duty for registration on November 28, 2025.

Defendant No. 1 filed an application (GA/5/2023) to facilitate the completion of the decree, providing technical details via a supplementary affidavit dated February 10, 2026.

Procedurally, an earlier application under Section 152 of the CPC to modify the decree was rejected in 1999 and affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2009.

However, a subsequent coordinate bench order on April 3, 2019, directed the Department to draw up the decree by collecting particulars from the record, noting that parties cannot be left remediless regarding the fruits of a decree.

1. Whether the court can permit the introduction of technical property details to facilitate the assessment of stamp duty after the rejection of a Section 152 CPC amendment application.

2. Whether the doctrine of merger or the prohibition against improving a case via supplementary affidavit bars the relief sought by Defendant No. 1.

The court considered Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the amendment of clerical or arithmetical errors in judgments/decrees.

It applied Rule 11 of Chapter 16 of the Original Side Rules of the Calcutta High Court, which allows the Registrar to include short recitals in a decree based on the record.

The court addressed the "Doctrine of Merger" as defined in Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr. (2000) 6 SCC 359.

The principle against reviving rejected prayers from State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey & Ors. (2001) 1 SCC 73.

It evaluated the rule against improving pleadings through supplementary affidavits as per Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Jessop and Co. Ltd. Staff Association & Ors. (2003) 4 CompLJ 333 (Cal).

The court reasoned that the current application is distinct from the 1999 application; the latter failed because the request did not fall under the narrow corrective scope of Section 152 CPC.

The 2019 judgment, which was not challenged, explicitly authorized the Department to add recitals by collecting particulars from the pleadings and materials on record.

The court found that the technical details provided in the supplementary affidavit were not "new" but existed in earlier pleadings, thus they did not constitute an improper "improvement" of the case.

Regarding the doctrine of merger and finality, the court held they were inapplicable because the present prayer concerns the execution/completion and registration of the decree to ensure the parties enjoy its "fruits," rather than a modification of the decree's substance.

The Collector’s inability to assess duty without these technical details was a procedural hurdle that the court was duty-bound to resolve.

It directed the parties to file Form No. 1 with the Collector within a fortnight, incorporating the technical details provided.

The Collector was ordered to assess the stamp duty and submit a report to the High Court within four weeks.

The application was listed for further hearing in five weeks, and the prayers for stay by the opposing parties were rejected.