Technical property details from records may be used to assess stamp duty and finalize decrees.

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

This decree, based on the settlement, allotted properties among the parties but lacked detailed technical descriptions.

Consequently, the Department found it difficult to draw up the decree, and the Collector, via a report dated November 28, 2025, stated an inability to assess stamp duty without technical particulars.

Previously, an application by Defendant No. 1 to alter the decree under Section 152 of the CPC was dismissed by the High Court in 1999 and affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2009, as the request did not fall within the parameters of correcting clerical or arithmetical errors.

However, a subsequent coordinate Bench order dated April 3, 2019, held that a party cannot be left remediless and directed the Department to draw up the decree by collecting particulars from pleadings and records.

Defendant No. 1 filed a supplementary affidavit on February 10, 2026, providing technical details and title deeds to facilitate valuation.

Respondents opposed this, citing the doctrine of merger and finality of the 1999/2009 orders.

1. Whether the technical property details provided in a supplementary affidavit can be used by the Collector to assess stamp duty for drawing up and completing a consent decree.

2. Whether the doctrine of merger or the principle of res judicata bars the current application due to the previous rejection of the Section 152 CPC application.

The Court applied Section 151 (Inherent powers) and Section 152 (Amendment of judgments/decrees) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

It also relied on Chapter XVI Rule 11 of the Original Side Rules of the Calcutta High Court, which governs the drawing up of decrees and recitals therein.

Regarding the doctrine of merger and finality of litigation, the Court considered the precedents of Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr. [(2000) 6 SCC 359].

State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey & Ors. [(2001) 1 SCC 73].

The Court distinguished the present application from the 1999 application. It noted that the previous rejection was specifically regarding the narrow scope of Section 152 CPC for correcting clerical errors.

The current prayer is for the ministerial completion and registration of the decree to allow the parties to enjoy its "fruits".

The Court observed that the technical details in the supplementary affidavit were not "new" improvements but were derived from existing title deeds and pleadings.

It held that the doctrine of merger did not apply because the 2019 coordinate Bench order—which mandated that the Department complete the decree using available materials—remained unchallenged and binding on the parties.

Since the Collector could not proceed without specific data, the Court found it necessary to permit the introduction of technical particulars to satisfy the administrative requirements of stamp duty assessment.

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 Appellants and certain Respondents were rejected.