Technical property details from records are permissible for stamp duty assessment to complete and register a decree.

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

While the settlement recorded property allotments, it lacked technical descriptions (e.g., title deed details), leading the Collector to report an inability to assess the stamp duty necessary for registration.

Previously, Defendant No. 1 sought to modify the decree under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), but this was rejected by the High Court in 1999 and affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2009 on the grounds that the omissions did not constitute clerical or arithmetical errors.

However, a subsequent coordinate Bench order dated April 3, 2019, directed the Department to draw up and complete the decree by collecting particulars from the pleadings and records to ensure the parties could enjoy the fruits of the decree.

Defendant No. 1 filed a supplementary affidavit on February 10, 2026, providing the necessary technical property details to facilitate valuation.

The other parties opposed this, citing the doctrine of merger and the finality of the earlier rejections.

1. Whether the technical property details provided in a supplementary affidavit can be used for stamp duty assessment and completion of the decree despite the prior rejection of an application to modify the decree under Section 152 CPC.

2. Whether the doctrine of merger and principles of res judicata bar the current relief seeking the drawing up and registration of the decree.

Section 152 of the CPC, which permits the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments or decrees.

Rule 11 of Chapter 16 of the Original Side Rules of the High Court at Calcutta, which allows the Registrar to include short recitals in a decree as necessary.

Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala, which defines the doctrine of merger.

State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey, regarding the finality of previously rejected reliefs.

Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Ltd. v. Jessop and Co. Ltd. Staff Association, which restricts improving a case via supplementary affidavits.

The Court distinguished the current application from the 1999/2009 proceedings, noting that the earlier rejection was narrowly confined to the scope of Section 152 CPC—finding the lack of property details was not a "clerical error".

The court emphasized that such a technicality cannot leave a party remediless or prevent the execution of a valid consent decree.

Following the coordinate Bench's 2019 order, which was not challenged and thus binding, the Department is authorized to add short recitals by collecting particulars from the existing record.

The Court found that the technical details provided in the supplementary affidavit were not "new" improvements but were culled from historical pleadings and title deeds already within the record.

Thus, the doctrine of merger did not apply because the present prayer for "drawing up and completion" for registration is functionally different from a "modification" of the judgment itself.

The Court directed the parties to file the requisite Form No. 1 with the Collector within a fortnight, incorporating the technical details from the supplementary affidavit.

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

The prayers for a stay of this order by the Appellants and other Defendants were rejected.