Technical property details from records may be utilized for stamp duty assessment to facilitate completion of decrees.

A consent decree was passed on May 22, 1997, by a Division Bench based on the "Mittal Settlement," which partitioned properties among the parties

Although the properties were identified, the decree lacked technical descriptions (title deed details), leading the Collector to report an inability to assess stamp duty for registration

Defendant No. 1 previously sought to amend 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

In 2019, a coordinate Bench ruled that the department should draw up the decree using particulars from the record and that parties should not be left remediless

Defendant No. 1 filed the current application and a supplementary affidavit on February 10, 2026, providing the technical details required by the Collector

The respondents opposed this, alleging it was an attempt to modify the decree in violation of the doctrine of merger and previous court orders

1. Whether the provision of technical property details for stamp duty assessment constitutes an impermissible modification or addition to the 1997 consent decree

2. Whether the doctrine of merger and the prior dismissal of the Section 152 CPC application bar the current relief sought for drawing up and completing the decree

3. Whether the court can permit the use of technical data found in existing pleadings via a supplementary affidavit to facilitate the assessment of stamp duty

The court primarily considered Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the court's inherent powers and the correction of clerical errors

It examined the "Doctrine of Merger" as per Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr. (2000) 6 SCC 359

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

Furthermore, the court addressed the principle that a party cannot improve their case via a supplementary affidavit, as discussed in Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Jessop and Co. Ltd. Staff Association & Ors. (2003) 4 CompLJ 333 (Cal)

The court reasoned that the 1999 rejection of the Section 152 CPC application only settled that the decree contained no "clerical or arithmetical error" amenable to correction under that specific section

However, the 2019 order, which attained finality, expressly mandated that the department complete the decree so parties could enjoy its fruits

The court found that the technical details provided in the 2026 supplementary affidavit were not "new" evidence but were culled from existing materials and title deeds already within the knowledge of the parties

Therefore, providing these details to the Collector did not amount to an alteration of the decree’s substance

The court distinguished the present prayer for "drawing up and completion" from the previous prayer for "correction," thus holding that the doctrine of merger and res judicata did not apply to stall the administrative process of stamp duty assessment

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

The Collector was directed to assess the stamp duty and submit a report to the High Court within four weeks

All prayers for a stay of this order by the respondents were rejected