ORDER : 1. The prayer has been made to recall the order dated 08/01/2024 passed in Second Appeal No.377 of 2018. 2. Mr.Kishan y. Dave, learned advocate for the applicant herein submitted that the applicant having reached the age of 85 years was not in a stage of continuing with the litigation and hence proposed to consider the appeal at the rate of interest of 12% per annum, though 18% rate of interest per annum has been granted by both the courts. Mr.Dave, learned advocate, thus, stated that it was only with a view to put an end to the litigation, as age of the applicant would not permit him to bear further litigation, bearing in mind that he would receive the fruits of the judgments of both the courts at the earliest. Mr.Dave, learned advocate, thus stated that on that basis, this Court has considered to curtail the litigation and had passed the order, Mr.Dave, learned advocate stated that reliance was placed on last resolution dated 25/08/2004 which was prior to Special Civil Suit No.5 of 2006. Mr.Dave, learned advocate stated that such resolution was neither relied upon before the court of first instance nor before the appellate court and both the courts considered 18% rate of interest per annum, while the resolution 25/08/2004 grants only 6% rate of interest per annum. Hence, the present prayer has been made to recall the order since decreetal amount bears the interest of 18% per annum and the resolution dated 25/08/2004 would adversly effect the applicant as an appellant as the calculation on 6% rate of interest per annum would effect the right of the applicant, the interest which has been ordered by both the courts of 18%, would get reduced to 6% interest per annum without the resolution being proved before the trial court and the appellate court. Mr.Dave, learned advocate further stated that this Court cannot rely on the resolution dated 25/08/2004 as the procedure for proving the same has not been followed. Mr.Dave, learned advocate also stated that this Court has also observed in para-16 of the order dated 08/01/2024 that no substantial questions to be raised in the Second Appeal as the appeal was not to be admitted and thus, stated that interest of 18% which has been decided by both the courts should not be altered. 3. Ms. Mr.Dave, learned advocate also stated that this Court has also observed in para-16 of the order dated 08/01/2024 that no substantial questions to be raised in the Second Appeal as the appeal was not to be admitted and thus, stated that interest of 18% which has been decided by both the courts should not be altered. 3. Ms. Tanushree Shrimal, learned AGP for the opponent State has relied upon the affidavit filed by the State and submitted that the application for recalling the order would not be maintainable in view of the principle of waiver and estoppel. Learned AGP submitted that the applicant’s advocate was present before the court in the main hearing and was aware of the facts of the case and has not raised any objection during the hearing. Thus, failure to raise the objection would amount to waiver of his right and therefore, is es-topped from raising the contention by way of filing the present application. Learned AGP further submitted that the applicant has not provided valid ground for recalling the order, as established by the legal proceedings set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Budhia Swain and others vs. Gopinath Deb and Others reported in (1999) 4 SCC 396 . Learned AGP further submitted that once an order has been passed, the matter under recall would lack jurisdiction and on very limited scope of Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code where no other remedy is available, the court can entertain the inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, and thus submitted that in case of Ramprakash vs. Gopikrishnan reported in (2013) 11 SCC 296 , the Apex Court clarifies the law for the use of power under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. Thus, learned AGP submits that Section 151 is not a substantive provision, hence, the relief prayed in the present matter should not be considered to have been invoked under the provision of Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code and, thus, submitted that inherent powers cannot be used to reopen the settled matters. Thus, learned AGP submits that Section 151 is not a substantive provision, hence, the relief prayed in the present matter should not be considered to have been invoked under the provision of Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code and, thus, submitted that inherent powers cannot be used to reopen the settled matters. Learned AGP, hence, further submitted that even if wrong conclusion is arrived at by the Court, the parties are bound by the same and the only recourse available would be to challenge the order before the higher forum and hence, submitted that this Court lacks jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to entertain the application and submitted to out right reject the same. 3.1. Learned AGP further submitted that interest on delayed payment of gratuity is required to be paid as per the various resolutions of the Government prevailing during the period of 74 months i.e. from 30/04/1998 to 20/07/2004. Learned AGP submitted that as per the resolution mentioned, the applicant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.1,56,526/- as interest on delayed payment of gratuity which has already been deposited before this Court. Learned AGP further submitted that the applicant has already received 30% of the amount deposited before this Court and, thus, submitted that the trial court and appellate court has committed an error in holding that the respondent was liable to pay the interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the delayed payment of pension benefit, gratuity and accumulated value of pension. Learned AGP submitted that date of retirement was 30/04/1998 and the date of payment was 20/07/2024, therefore, the rate of interest as per the various resolutions of the Government which has been relied upon before this Court are required to be considered. 3.2. Learned AGP further submitted that the applicant has not satisfied any of the conditions for making a prayer for recalling the order and further stated that the applicant’s lack of diligence in raising objection earlier should now not be rewarded by allowing the present application, hence, urged to reject the application. 4. 3.2. Learned AGP further submitted that the applicant has not satisfied any of the conditions for making a prayer for recalling the order and further stated that the applicant’s lack of diligence in raising objection earlier should now not be rewarded by allowing the present application, hence, urged to reject the application. 4. This Court, while dealing with the Second Appeal No.377 of 2018, between the State of Gujarat vs. Zhaverchand Pragjibhai Vekariya had noted about arguments raised where Mr.Dave, learned advocate for the respondent had stated that the claim was made before the trial court for Rs.3,80,394.34 for a period between 01/05/1998 to 20/07/2004 at 12% per interest per annum and stated that 18% simple interest per annnm has been granted by both the courts. Mr.Dave, learned advocate, thus, urged the court to consider 12% interest per annum, as prayed by the respondent as plaintiff before the trial court, to give a closure to the litigation. 5. Today, during the course of hearing of the present application to recall the order, Mr. Dave, learned advocate stated that it was only on that ground, that the plaintiff had prayed for 12% before the trial court but had proved the entitlement of 18% and to put an end to further litigation at the instruction of the client, he had urged the court to consider the matter and to direct the State to pay the amount at the rate of 12% interest per annum. 5.1. While, learned AGP submitted that the resolution dated 25/08/2004 was referred to during the course of argument and it was urged by the State to consider the case on the basis of the resolution dated 25/08/2004. 6. In case of Budhiya Swain and others (supra), the inherent power to recall was considered in view of the judgment in case of Indian Bank vs. Satyam Fibers (India) (P) Ltd. reported in (1996) 5 SCC 550 where it was noted in para-23 that the court would have inherent power to recall and set aside the order (i) obtained by fraud practised upon the court, (ii) when the court is misled by a party, or (iii) when the court itself commits a mistake which prejudices a party. While in case of Budhiya Swain (supra), the Apex Court had held, referring to the judgment in case of Indian Bank vs. Satyam Fibers (India) (P) Ltd. (supra), judgment in case of A. R. Antulay vs. R. S. Nayak reported in (1988) 2 SCC 602 and in Corpus Juries Secundum (Volume-XIX) under the chapter “Judgment-Opening and Vacating” and had opined about the inherent power of the court to recall an order, which has been expressed in para-8 as under: “In our opinion a tribunal or a court may recall an order earlier made by it if (i) the proceedings culminating into an order suffer from the inherent lack of jurisdiction and such lack of jurisdiction is patent, (ii) there exists fraud or collusion in obtaining the judgment, (iii) there has been a mistake of the court prejudicing a party or (iv) a judgment was rendered in ignorance of the fact that a necessary party had not been served at all or had died and the estate was not represented. The power to recall a judgment will not be exercised when the ground for re-opening the proceedings or vacating the judgment was available to be pleaded in the original action but was not done or where a proper remedy in some other proceeding such as by way of appeal or revision was available but was not availed. The right to seek vacation of a judgment may be lost by waiver, estoppel or acquiescence.” 7. This Court, in the order dated 08/01/2024 which has been prayed to be recalled, had observed that there was no substantial question to be raised in the second appeal and therefore, the matter was not required to be admitted and hence has stood dismissed noting that the payment of interest on the delayed payment is to be calculated and so to be paid in view of the fact that the amount has been deposited before the Nazir of this Court. 8. This Court was not inclined to admit the Second Appeal, however, on submission of learned advocate Mr.Dave that the respondent, with a view not to suffer further, had instructed him to submit before the Court to grant 12% interest per annum instead of 18% interest per annum so that the present applicant would get the benefit of the money at the age of 85 years without any further delay. 9. 9. Thus, in that submission, para-13 was noted in the order dated 08/01/2024, which is reproduced as under: “13. Without entering into the niceties on the rate of the interest as ordered by both the Courts, and as agitated by the learned Advocates of both the sides, considering the age of the appellant, the need to curtail future round of litigation and since the State of Gujarat, Finance Department is bound to follow its own Resolution, let the interest be paid as per the last Resolution referred to, i.e. dated 25.08.2004, as was prior to the Special Civil Suit No.5 of 2006 filed by the plaintiff.” 10. This Court had with an intention to put a break on further round of litigation had ordered the State to follow its own resolution, however, this court had further detailed by referring to resolution dated 25/08/2004. It has been brought to the notice of this Court by Mr.Dave, learned advocate that the said resolution dated 25/08/2004 was never referred or relied upon during the trial or before the first appellate court. Mr.Dave, learned advocate further stated that the rate of interest in the said resolution is 6% and in the judgment of the trial court and the appellate court, the appellant has been permitted to recover the money at the rate of 18% interest per annum. Mr.Dave, learned advocate has submitted that the reference of the said resolution and permitting the state to pay the money as per the resolution dated 25/08/2004 would prejudice the applicant. 11. As per the order, this Court has committed a mistake while ordering the recovery of money on the basis of resolution dated 25/08/2004 which was never referred or relied upon during or before the appellate court. The Court is of an opinion that the said mistake would prejudice the respondent. 12. In view of the same, this Court is of an opinion that para- 13 of the order dated 08/01/2024 in Second Appeal No.377 of 2018, is required to be recalled, thus the same is ordered to be deleted from the impugned order. 13. The Court is of an opinion that the said mistake would prejudice the respondent. 12. In view of the same, this Court is of an opinion that para- 13 of the order dated 08/01/2024 in Second Appeal No.377 of 2018, is required to be recalled, thus the same is ordered to be deleted from the impugned order. 13. Since 30% amount was permitted to be disbursed to the respondent, in view of the fact that para-13 has been recalled, let total amount as deposited before the Nazir of this Court be paid to the respondent, after due verification of identity and the son of the respondent be permitted to receive the amount on his behalf. 14. Present application stands partly allowed in the above terms. 15. The order dated 08/01/2024 passed in Second Appeal No.377 of 2018 be modified accordingly.