Technical property details may be provided to facilitate stamp duty assessment for finalization and completion of a consent decree.

A consent decree was passed by a Division Bench on May 22, 1997, based on the "Mittal Settlement" for the partition of properties

While the settlement identified the properties, it lacked technical descriptions (e.g., title deed details), leading the Collector to report an inability to assess stamp duty for registration on November 28, 2025

Previously, an application by Defendant No. 1 under Section 152 of the CPC to modify the decree was rejected by the High Court in 1999 and the Supreme Court in 2009, as the requested changes did not constitute clerical or arithmetical errors

However, a subsequent coordinate bench order on April 3, 2019, held that a party cannot be left remediless and directed the Department to draw up the decree by collecting particulars from the pleadings and materials on record

Defendant No. 1 filed the current application (GA/5/2023) and a supplementary affidavit providing technical details of the properties to facilitate valuation by the Collector

1. Whether the technical details provided in a supplementary affidavit can be used for stamp duty assessment without violating the earlier judicial rejections of decree modification

2. Whether the doctrine of merger or the principle of res judicata prevents the court from granting relief regarding the drawing up and completion of the decree

3. Whether the supplementary affidavit constitutes an impermissible attempt to "improve" the case

The Court applied Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments or decrees

It also relied on Rule 11, Chapter XVIA of the Original Side Rules of the Calcutta High Court, which allows the Department to add short recitals to a decree by collecting particulars from pleadings and materials on record

The court distinguished 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. v. Jessop and Co. Ltd. Staff Association regarding the use of supplementary affidavits to improve a case

The Court reasoned that the 1999 and 2009 rejections were specifically confined to the parameters of Section 152 CPC and did not strip the parties of their right to enjoy the fruits of the decree

It emphasized the 2019 coordinate bench order, which attained finality and explicitly permitted the Department to use existing pleadings to complete the decree

Regarding the technical details in the supplementary affidavit, the Court found they were not "new" but existed within the historical pleadings of the parties; thus, providing them now was a procedural necessity for the Collector’s valuation rather than a substantive modification of the decree

The Court dismissed the "merger" argument, noting that the current prayer for drawing up and registering the decree is distinct from the prior failed attempt to correct the decree text itself

The Court directed the parties to file Form No. 1 with the Collector within a fortnight, containing the details from the supplementary affidavit. The Collector was directed to assess the stamp duty and submit a report to the Court within four weeks

The prayer for a stay by the opposing parties was rejected