Technical property details from records may be utilized for stamp duty assessment to complete a consent decree.

On May 22, 1997, a Division Bench passed a consent decree in a suit for declaration and cancellation of the "Mittal Settlement"

While the settlement recorded the allotment of properties, it lacked technical descriptions and title deed details

Consequently, the Collector was unable to assess the stamp duty required for the registration of the decree, as indicated in a report dated November 28, 2025

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

However, a subsequent coordinate Bench order dated April 3, 2019, held that a party should not be left remediless and directed the Department to complete the decree by collecting particulars from pleadings and materials on record

Defendant No. 1 filed the present application and a supplementary affidavit dated February 10, 2026, providing the necessary technical details to facilitate stamp duty assessment

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

2. Whether the doctrine of merger and the principle of res judicata barred the relief sought by Defendant No. 1

3. Whether the supplementary affidavit constituted an impermissible improvement on the original application

Section 152 of the CPC regarding the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments or decrees

Chapter XVI Rule 11 of the Original Side Rules of the Calcutta High Court and Order 20 Rule 6 of the CPC, which mandate the drawing up of a decree and permit short recitals derived from the record

The court addressed the "Doctrine of Merger" as established in Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala

The finality of rejected prayers as per State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey & Ors.

The limitations of supplementary affidavits established in Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Jessop and Co. Ltd. Staff Association & Ors.

The Court observed that the earlier rejection of the Section 152 application (which attained finality in 2009) was based strictly on the statutory limits of correcting "errors"; it did not strip the parties of their right to enjoy the fruits of the decree

The Court highlighted that the judgment dated April 3, 2019, which authorized the Department to add particulars from the "materials on record," remained unchallenged and governed the parties

The Court found that the technical details provided in the supplementary affidavit were not "new" but existed within the historical pleadings of the case

Therefore, providing these details did not constitute an "improvement" of the case or an alteration of the decree, but was a necessary step for the administrative task of stamp duty assessment

Regarding the doctrine of merger, the Court held it was inapplicable because the current prayer for "drawing up and completion" is distinct from the prior prayer for "correction under Section 152"

The Court directed the parties to file "Form No. 1" (as requested by the Collector) containing the technical details within a fortnight. The Collector was directed to assess the stamp duty payable and submit a report to the High Court within four weeks. The prayers for stay made by the Appellants and other Respondents were rejected