OD-13 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE IA No.GA/5/2023 In APO/504/1992 KUSUM AGARWALA AND ANR.

Versus BINOD KUMAR AGARWAL AND ORS.

Present :

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak -And-

T h e Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi For the Appellant : Mr. Dhruba Ghosh, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Rohit Banerjee, Adv.

Mr. Shomik Das, Adv.

Mr. Debabrata Mukherjee, Adv.

For the Respondent No.1 : Mr.Sabyasachi Chowdhury, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Rituparna De Ghosh, Adv.

Mr. Arnab Sardar, Adv.

Mr. Malay Seal, Adv.

For the Respondent No.2 : Mr.Amales Ray, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Mousumi Bhowal, Adv.

Mr. Sarosish Dasgupta, Adv.

Mr. Ishan Bhattacharya, Adv.

For the Respondent No.3 : Mr.Debnath Ghosh, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Shomrita Das, Adv.

Mr. Biswaroop Mukherjee, Adv.

HEARD ON : 30.03.2026 JUDGMENT ON : 30.03.2026 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

1. I.A. No. GA/5/2023 is an application at the behest of the defendant no. 1 seeking relief with regard to drawing up and completion of the decree dated May 22, 1997 passed in a suit for declaration and cancellation of “Mittal Settlement” by the Division Bench.

2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the defendant no. 1 submits that, in a suit a consent decree was passed by the Division Bench on May 22, 1997. He submits that, the consent decree was on the basis of a “Mittal Settlement” which formed part of the decree. The “Mittal Settlement” records certain properties and the allotment thereof amongst the parties to the suit. He contends that, although the parties to the suit know about the properties involved in the settlement, nonetheless since, the detailed description of such properties were not provided in the decree, the Collector was unable to assess the stamp duty payable for the registration of the decree. He refers to the report of the Collector in this regard dated November 28, 2025. He submits that the supplementary affidavit affirmed by the defendant no. 1 dated February 10, 2026 contains such details on the basis of which, the stamp duty can be assessed. He submits that the Collector should be directed to assess the stamp duty on the basis of details given in the supplementary affidavit affirmed by his client on February 10, 2026.

3. Referring to the supplementary affidavit affirmed on February 10, 2026 by the defendant no. 1, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the defendant no. 1 draws the attention of the Court to pages 7 to 10 thereof. He submits that, the technical details of the properties together with the supporting title deeds are made available in the supplementary affidavit.

4. Referring to the various orders of the Court passed from time to time, learned Senior Advocate for the defendant No.1 submits that, initially an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was turned down by a Division Bench. He contends that, such order of the Division Bench is not an impediment in the defendant no. 1 furnishing the details of the properties involved and, the Collector assessing the stamp duty on the basis of such particulars. In any event, he submits that the parties are governed by the judgment and order dated April 3, 2019. He refers to such judgment and order and submits that, the Division Bench held that, the decree was passed by the Court. A party to the suit cannot be left remediless without being able to enjoy the fruits of the decree.

5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the defendant no. 1 submits that, other parties to the suit are enjoying the fruits of the decree dated May 22, 1997. The opposing parties are purposefully stalling the drawing up and completion of the decree dated May 22, 1997 on specious pleas.

6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the defendant no. 3 submits that the issue as to whether the decree can be modified or anything can be added to such decree dated May 22, 1997 stands finally decided. He refers to the sequence of events including the orders passed from time to time right up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He principally relies upon the order dated August