Technical property details for stamp duty assessment do not constitute an impermissible modification of a consent decree.

In a suit for declaration and cancellation of a "Mittal Settlement," a consent decree was passed by a Division Bench on May 22, 1997

The decree allotted properties based on the settlement, which contained brief property descriptions but lacked technical details

Due to these insufficient descriptions, the Department found it difficult to draw up the decree, and the Collector was unable to assess the stamp duty required for registration

Previously, an application by Defendant No. 1 to alter the decree under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was rejected by the High Court in 1999 and affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2009, on the grounds that the request did not fall within the scope of correcting clerical errors

Subsequently, a coordinate Bench in 2019 ruled that the Department could add short recitals by collecting particulars from pleadings and materials on record to prevent the parties from being left remediless

In the current application (GA/5/2023), Defendant No. 1 submitted a supplementary affidavit dated February 10, 2026, containing technical details and title deeds to facilitate the Collector's assessment

Respondents opposed the application, arguing it was an attempt to modify a decree that had attained finality and was barred by the doctrine of merger

1. Whether the provision of technical property details via a supplementary affidavit constitutes an impermissible modification of a decree that has attained finality.

2. Whether the doctrine of merger and the principle of finality of litigation prevent the court from directing the Collector to assess stamp duty based on technical details not explicitly written in the original decree.

Section 152 of the CPC regarding the amendment of judgments or decrees for clerical or arithmetical mistakes

Order 20 Rule 6 and 6A of the CPC along with Chapter 16 of the Original Side Rules of the High Court, which mandate the drawing up of a decree following a judgment

The court addressed the "Doctrine of Merger" as established in Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala, which posits that a lower court's order merges into the superior court's order

Principle that a party cannot improve their case through a supplementary affidavit, as discussed in Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Jessop and Co. Ltd. Staff Association & Ors.

The Court distinguished between the substantive modification of a decree (which was previously rejected under Section 152 CPC) and the administrative process of drawing up and completing the decree for registration

It noted that the 2019 coordinate Bench order, which remained unchallenged, specifically empowered the Department to collect particulars from existing materials and pleadings to complete the decree

The Court found that the technical details provided in the supplementary affidavit were not "new" evidence but were already present in the existing pleadings and title deeds; thus, they did not constitute an "improvement" of the original prayer or a modification of the decree's substance

Consequently, the doctrine of merger was held inapplicable because the current prayer sought the "fruits of the decree" through registration, rather than a correction of a clerical error

The Court emphasized that a party should not be left remediless due to the Department's inability to assess valuation for stamp duty

The Court directed the parties to file the requisite Form No. 1 with the Collector within a fortnight

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

The prayers for stay made by the appellant and certain respondents were rejected