Technical property details from records may facilitate stamp duty assessment to ensure implementation of a partition decree.

On May 22, 1997, a Division Bench passed a consent decree based on the "Mittal Settlement" involving the partition of various properties

While the settlement identified the properties, it lacked technical descriptions and title deed details

Consequently, the Collector reported an inability to assess the stamp duty necessary for the registration and completion of the decree (Report dated Nov 28, 2025)

Defendant No. 1 subsequently filed a supplementary affidavit providing these technical details to facilitate assessment

Previously, an application under Section 152 of the CPC to alter the decree was rejected by the High Court and the Supreme Court (Aug 12, 2009)

However, a subsequent coordinate Bench order dated April 3, 2019, held that the department could add short recitals to the decree by collecting particulars from pleadings and materials on record to ensure parties are not left remediless

1. Whether the court can permit the use of technical property details provided in a supplementary affidavit for stamp duty assessment, given the prior rejection of an application to modify the decree under Section 152 CPC

2. Whether the current application is barred by the doctrine of merger or the principle of finality of litigation

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

The court considered Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which governs the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments or decrees

It applied Chapter XVIA Rule 11 of the Original Side Rules of the Calcutta High Court, which allows the Registrar to include necessary short recitals in a decree

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

the principle against re-opening rejected reliefs as per State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey

It further referenced Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Jessop and Co. Ltd. Staff Association regarding the limitations of improving a case through supplementary affidavits

The Court reasoned that the current prayer is for the "drawing up and completion" of the decree, not its modification or alteration under Section 152 CPC

The prior rejections by the Supreme Court pertained specifically to the narrow parameters of Section 152 and did not strip the parties of their right to enjoy the fruits of the decree

The Court relied on the 2019 coordinate Bench judgment, which attained finality and explicitly authorized the Department to incorporate particulars from the record to complete the decree

Regarding the supplementary affidavit, the Court found that the technical details provided were already part of the existing pleadings and records; therefore, they did not constitute a "new" case or an "improvement" of the prayer

Consequently, the doctrine of merger and res judicata did not apply because the legal objective (execution/registration) differed from the previous litigation (amendment of the decree)

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

Prayers for a stay of this order by the appellant and other respondents were rejected