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

The parties entered into a consent decree on May 22, 1997, based on a "Mittal Settlement" for the partition of properties

The settlement lacked technical details (specific descriptions and title deeds), which prevented the Department from completing the decree and the Collector from assessing stamp duty

A previous application by Defendant No. 1 to alter the decree under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was dismissed by the Division Bench in 1999 and subsequently by the Supreme Court in 2009, on the grounds that the request did not fall within the scope of correcting clerical or arithmetical errors

On April 3, 2019, a coordinate Bench directed the Department to draw up the decree by collecting particulars from pleadings and records, holding that a party cannot be left remediless

Defendant No. 1 filed the present application and a supplementary affidavit dated February 10, 2026, providing technical details and title deeds to facilitate the Collector’s assessment of stamp duty

1. Whether the provision of technical property details via a supplementary affidavit constitutes an impermissible modification of the decree previously rejected under Section 152 of the CPC

2. Whether the doctrine of merger and principles of finality of orders bar the Court from considering the supplementary affidavit to complete the drawing up of the decree

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

Order XX Rule 6 of the CPC and Chapter XVI Rule 11 of the Original Side Rules of the High Court, which mandate the drawing up of a decree and permit short recitals collected from pleadings and records

Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala regarding the doctrine of merger

State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey regarding the finality of rejected prayers

Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Jessop and Co. Ltd. Staff Association regarding the scope of supplementary affidavits

The Court reasoned that while the previous 1999/2009 orders correctly held that Section 152 CPC could not be used to alter the decree’s substance, those orders did not prevent parties from enjoying the "fruits of the decree"

The Court emphasized that the judgment dated April 3, 2019, which attained finality, explicitly authorized the Department to include recitals from existing materials on record to complete the decree

The technical details provided in the 2026 supplementary affidavit were found to be consistent with the original Mittal Settlement and existing pleadings, rather than being "new" or an "improvement" of the original prayer

Consequently, the Court held that providing these details was a procedural necessity for the Collector to assess valuation and stamp duty, which is a prerequisite for the registration and completion of the partition decree, rather than an unlawful modification of the decree itself

The Court directed the parties to file the requisite Form No. 1 with the technical details before the Collector within a fortnight

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

The prayer for a stay of this order by the opposing parties was rejected