Technical property particulars from the record may be supplied to facilitate the drawing up and registration of a decree.

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

While the settlement identified the properties, it lacked technical descriptions (title deed details), which prevented the Collector from assessing the stamp duty required for the registration and completion of the decree

In 1999, the Court rejected an application under Section 152 of the CPC to modify the decree to include these details, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court in 2009 on the grounds that the request did not meet the criteria for correcting clerical/arithmetical errors

Subsequently, in 2019, a coordinate bench ruled that the decree must be drawn up and the department could include short recitals by collecting particulars from the pleadings

Defendant No. 1 filed the present application with a supplementary affidavit providing technical details to assist the Collector in valuation

1. Whether the present application for providing technical property details is barred by the doctrine of merger or the previous rejection of the Section 152 CPC application

2. Whether technical property details can be introduced via a supplementary affidavit to facilitate the drawing up and completion of the decree

The Court considered Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, which allows for the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes

It examined the "doctrine of merger" from Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr. (2000)

the principle against re-litigating rejected prayers from State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey & Ors. (2001)

The Court also referenced Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Jessop and Co. Ltd. Staff Association & Ors. (2003) regarding the use of supplementary affidavits to improve a party’s case

Procedurally, it applied Chapter XVIA Rule 11 of the Original Side Rules of the Calcutta High Court regarding the drawing up of decrees

The Court determined that the 1999 and 2009 orders merely established that Section 152 CPC was the incorrect procedural vehicle for adding property details; they did not bar the parties from ever completing the decree

The Court highlighted that a 2019 order, which attained finality, specifically empowered the department to collect particulars from the record to complete the decree

Regarding the doctrine of merger, the Court held it was inapplicable because the current prayer—completing a decree for partition—is administrative and distinct from the legal modification sought earlier

Furthermore, the technical details provided in the supplementary affidavit were not "new" evidence but were culled from existing pleadings; thus, the affidavit did not constitute an "improvement" of the case but rather assisted the Collector in performing a statutory duty

The Court emphasized that parties cannot be left remediless or unable to enjoy the fruits of a decree due to technical omissions

It directed the parties to file the requisite forms with the property details provided in the supplementary affidavit within a fortnight

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

All prayers for a stay were rejected