Technical property details from judicial records may be used to assess stamp duty and complete a consent decree.

The litigation originates from a 1997 consent decree passed by a Division Bench based on the "Mittal Settlement," which allocated various properties among the parties

Although the settlement identified properties, it lacked specific "technical details" (title deed information and detailed descriptions), preventing the Collector from assessing the stamp duty necessary for the registration and completion of the decree

Previously, Defendant No. 1 sought to amend the decree under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), but this was rejected by the High Court and the Supreme Court in 2009 on the grounds that the omissions did not constitute clerical or arithmetical errors

In 2019, a coordinate Bench held that a party cannot be left remediless and directed the Department to complete the decree by collecting particulars from existing records

Defendant No. 1 filed the present application with a supplementary affidavit providing technical details to enable the Collector’s assessment

The Respondents opposed the application, citing the doctrine of merger and finality of litigation

1. Whether the provision of technical property details via a supplementary affidavit constitutes an impermissible modification of a decree previously finalized by the Supreme Court.

2. Whether the doctrine of merger and the principle of res judicata bar the court from granting relief regarding the drawing up of the decree.

3. Whether the technical details provided in the supplementary affidavit can be used by the Collector to assess stamp duty for the completion of the decree.

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

Order XX Rule 6 of the CPC and Chapter 16 Rule 11 of the Calcutta High Court Original Side Rules, which govern the contents and drawing up of decrees

Doctrine of merger as established in Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala

Prohibition against reopening rejected reliefs as per State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey

Principle from Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Ltd. v. Jessop and Co. Ltd. that a party cannot improve its case through a supplementary affidavit

The Court distinguished between the prior rejection of the Section 152 application and the current request for administrative completion of the decree.

It noted that the earlier refusal was based strictly on the narrow parameters of Section 152 and did not preclude parties from seeking the "fruits of the decree"

The Bench relied heavily on the unchallenged 2019 coordinate Bench order, which empowered the Department to incorporate particulars from the pleadings and materials on record to complete the decree

The Court found that the technical details provided in the supplementary affidavit were not "new" information but were rooted in existing pleadings; therefore, they did not constitute an "improvement" of the case or an alteration of the decree's substance

Since the Collector requires these details to perform a statutory duty (valuation for stamp duty), providing them was deemed a necessary step for the execution of the 1997 consent decree

The Court directed the parties to file the requisite "Form No. 1" containing the property details with the Collector within a fortnight; the Collector was directed to assess the stamp duty and submit a report within four weeks thereafter. All prayers for a stay of this order by the Respondents and Appellants were rejected.