Technical property details from records may facilitate decree completion and stamp duty assessment for registration.

The litigation stems from a consent decree passed on May 22, 1997, by a Division Bench based on the "Mittal Settlement," which partitioned properties among the parties

While the settlement identified the properties, it lacked technical descriptions (e.g., survey numbers or title deed details), leading the Department to face difficulties in drawing up the final decree and 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 on the grounds that the omissions did not constitute a clerical error

Subsequently, a coordinate Bench on April 3, 2019, directed the Department to complete the decree by collecting particulars from pleadings and records, noting that a party should not be left remediless

Defendant No. 1 filed the current application and a supplementary affidavit dated February 10, 2026, providing the necessary technical details to facilitate the Collector’s assessment

Respondents opposed the application, arguing the doctrine of merger and that the affidavit improperly sought to improve the case or modify a decree that had attained finality

1. Whether the court can permit the use of technical property details provided in a supplementary affidavit to facilitate the assessment of stamp duty and completion of a decree, despite the prior rejection of an amendment under Section 152 of the CPC

2. Whether the doctrine of merger or the principle of finality of judgments bars the current application for drawing up and completing the decree

3. Whether the disclosure of technical details via supplementary affidavit constitutes an impermissible improvement of the original pleadings

The court applied Section 151 and Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, distinguishing between the correction of clerical errors and the ministerial act of drawing up a decree

It relied on Order XX Rule 6 of the CPC and Chapter XVI Rules 1 and 11 of the Original Side Rules of the Calcutta High Court, which mandate the drawing up of a decree following a judgment

The court addressed the "Doctrine of Merger" as defined in Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr. (2000) 6 SCC 359

The finality of rejected prayers as per State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey & Ors. (2001) 1 SCC 73

Furthermore, it considered the limits of improving a case through supplementary affidavits 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 current prayer was for the "drawing up and completion" of the decree, which is distinct from the previously rejected application for "alteration" under Section 152 CPC

It emphasized that the judgment dated April 3, 2019, which remained unchallenged, specifically empowered the Department to incorporate short recitals by collecting particulars from the record to ensure the decree-holder could enjoy the fruits of the decree

The Court found that the technical details provided in the 2026 supplementary affidavit were not "new" evidence but were culled from existing pleadings and title deeds already in the record; thus, the ratio in Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Ltd. regarding the improper improvement of a case did not apply

Regarding the doctrine of merger and res judicata, the Court held they were inapplicable because the current proceedings focused on the administrative/ministerial necessity of valuing property for stamp duty to satisfy the Collector’s requirements, rather than changing the substantive terms of the 1997 consent decree

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

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

All prayers for a stay of this order were rejected