JUDGMENT : Krishna Rao, J. 1. Plaintiff has filed the present application for recalling a part of the Judgment and Decree passed by this Court on 8th December, 2022 in C.S. No. 133 of 2019 and to allow the plaintiff to pursue its claim for interest and cost in accordance with law or in the alternative, the judgment and decree be amended or modified to include a direction on the defendant to pay costs of Rs.40,84,981/- to the plaintiff in terms of Section 35 read with Section 35A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. The plaintiff had filed the suit being C.S. No. 133 of 2019 praying for a decree for Rs.83,46,507/- along with interest at the rate of 17% per annum and also prayed for cost. In the suit, the plaintiff has filed an application under Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules of this Court for final judgment and decree. Defendant has contested the said application. By a judgment dated 8th December, 2022, this Court disposed of the said application holding that there is nothing which the defendant has been able to demonstrate that there is any plausible defence to the unimpeachable claim of the plaintiff. This court passes decree on admission directing the defendant to pay Rs.83,46,507/- to the plaintiff and suit along with application were disposed of. 3. After the Judgment and Decree passed by this Court, the plaintiff has filed an execution case before the Executing Court being Execution Case No. 220 of 2023 against the defendant. Inspite of several orders passed by the Executing Court, the judgment debtor failed to appear and accordingly warrant of arrest issued against the judgment debtor. The judgment-debtor entered appearance and filed affidavit of assets. The judgment-debtor has paid the decreetal amount of Rs.83,46,507/- to the decree holder and the decree holder has received the said amount. Before the Executing Court, the decree holder has claimed cost by referring Section 35 and 35A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but the Executing Court has not entertained the claim of the decree holder on the ground the Trial Court has not granted cost to the decree holder. Now, the decree holder has filed the present application. 4. Mr. Now, the decree holder has filed the present application. 4. Mr. Rajarshi Dutta, Learned Advocate representing the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff has prayed for interest on the principal amount at the rate of 17% per annum until realisation and also cost as the disputes are commercial in nature but this Court has not considered the prayer of the plaintiff for grant of interest and cost. He submits that this Court had no occasion to consider or deal with the claim of interest and cost as this Court was only considering the application for summary judgment for sum of Rs.83,46,507/- and thus the judgment and decree is required to be recalled so as to enable the plaintiff to pursue the claim of interest and cost. 5. Mr. Dutta submits that in order to do substantiate justice, it is clear that the courts have inherent power to amend or vary decree so as to bring then in accordance with law even if they do not fall strictly within the purview of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. He submits that mistake or error in the judgment is clearly unintentional as this Court was considering only the application for summary judgment, where no additional relief for interest and cost was claimed. He submits that it is unusual that the Court while disposing of an application for summary judgment, would dispose of the suit permanently thereby taking away the right of the plaintiff to pursue its claim for other reliefs and in the present case, the plaintiff has suffered as this Court has not passed any judgment and decree with respect to interest and cost. 6. Mr. Dutta submits that the present suit is commercial in nature and has referred Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and submitted that under the said provision, the Court has the discretion to impose cost upon the defendant and if cost is not awarded, reasons is to be given in writing but in the present case, though this court has not allowed the cost but has also not provided any reason as to why the cost has not been granted. 7. Mr. Dutta relied upon the judgment reported in (2018) 1 Mh.L.J 474 (Dashrath B. Rathod & Ors. 7. Mr. Dutta relied upon the judgment reported in (2018) 1 Mh.L.J 474 (Dashrath B. Rathod & Ors. vs. Fox Star Studios India Private Limited & Ors.) and submitted that in an action under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, costs follow the event and if an order of no costs is to be made, then reasons are required. He submits that no litigant in the Commercial Division can ordinarily escape a litigation loss without an accompanying order of costs. 8. Mr. Dutta relied upon the judgment reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 19972 (Bipin Vazirani vs. V. Raheja Design Construction Private Limtied & Anr.) and submitted that under Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, requires to award costs that are reasonable including litigation costs, and to give reasons, if costs are not to be awarded. 9. Per contra, Mr. Rudraman Bhattacharya, Learned Advocate, representing the defendant submits that this Court had disposed of the application filed by the plaintiff under Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules of this Court on 8th December, 2022 by directing the defendant to pay Rs.83,46,507/- and being satisfied with the judgment and decree passed by this Court, the plaintiff had initiated an execution proceeding before the Executing Court being E.C. No. 220 of 2023. In the said executing proceeding, the judgment debtor, defendant herein had paid the total decreetal amount to the plaintiff which was duly accepted by the plaintiff and accordingly the Executing Court by an order dated 19th February, 2024 has disposed of the execution proceeding with full satisfaction. 10. Mr. Bhattacharya submitted that this Court has passed judgment and decree on 8th December, 2022 but the plaintiff has filed the present 9th application for recalling of the judgment 8th December, 2022 on February, 2024 i.e. about more than 13 months from the judgment and decree passed by this Court. 11. Mr. Bhattacharya submits that once the Court has passed the judgment and decree and the plaintiff on being satisfied had initiated execution proceeding and the execution preceding has been disposed of with full satisfaction, the application filed by the plaintiff praying for recalling of the judgment and decree is not maintainable. 11. Mr. Bhattacharya submits that once the Court has passed the judgment and decree and the plaintiff on being satisfied had initiated execution proceeding and the execution preceding has been disposed of with full satisfaction, the application filed by the plaintiff praying for recalling of the judgment and decree is not maintainable. He further submits that Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is not applicable in the present case as it is not the case of the plaintiff that there is any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgment and decree or error arising therein from any accidental slip or omissions. 12. Mr. Bhattacharya submits that in the present application, the plaintiff has prayed for recalling of the judgment and decree for imposing cost which cannot be said to be clerical or arithmetical error. He submits that by way of this application, the plaintiff intends that the decree is to be modified by awarding cost though the decree has already been put in execution and execution case is disposed of with full satisfactions. 13. Mr. Bhattacharyya relied upon the judgment reported in 2012 SCC OnLine Cal 12648 (Radha Rani Basak vs. Niva Alias Sankari Bose & Ors.) and submitted that the plaintiff has put the decree on execution and the defendant had paid the total decreetal amount to the plaintiff and the execution proceeding is disposed of with full satisfaction and there is no lis pending before this Court and thus this Court becomes functus officio. 14. Mr. Bhattacharya relied upon the judgment reported in (2001) 1 SCC 73 (State Bank of India vs. Ram Chandra Dubey & Ors.) and submitted that this Court has passed the decree without allowing any interest or cost to the plaintiff and hence the relief prayed for by the plaintiff in the suit with respect to interest and cost deemed to have been denied. 15. Heard the Learned Counsel for the respective parties, perused the materials on record and the judgments relied by the parties. 16. Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, reads as follows : “35. 15. Heard the Learned Counsel for the respective parties, perused the materials on record and the judgments relied by the parties. 16. Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, reads as follows : “35. Costs.—(1) In relation to any commercial dispute, the Court, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or Rule, has the discretion to determine: (a) whether costs are payable by one party to another; (b) the quantum of those costs; and (c) when they are to be paid. Explanation.—For the purpose of clause (a), the expression “costs” shall mean reasonable costs relating to— (i) the fees and expenses of the witnesses incurred; (ii) legal fees and expenses incurred; (iii) any other expenses incurred in connection with the proceedings. (2) If the Court decides to make an order for payment of costs, the general rule is that the unsuccessful party shall be ordered to pay the costs of the successful party: Provided that the Court may make an order deviating from the general rule for reasons to be recorded in writing. Illustration The Plaintiff, in his suit, seeks a money decree for breach of contract, and damages. The Court holds that the Plaintiff is entitled to the money decree. However, it returns a finding that the claim for damages is frivolous and vexatious. In such circumstances the Court may impose costs on the Plaintiff, despite the Plaintiff being the successful party, for having raised frivolous claims for damages. (3) In making an order for the payment of costs, the Court shall have regard to the following circumstances, including— (a) the conduct of the parties; (b) whether a party has succeeded on part of its case, even if that party has not been wholly successful; (c) whether the party had made a frivolous counter-claim leading to delay in the disposal of the case; (d) whether any reasonable offer to settle is made by a party and unreasonably refused by the other party; and (e) whether the party had made a frivolous claim and instituted a vexatious proceeding wasting the time of the Court. (4) The orders which the Court may make under this provision include an order that a party must pay–– (a) a proportion of another party’s costs; 12 (b) a stated amount in respect of another party’s costs; (c) costs from or until a certain date; (d) costs incurred before proceedings have begun; (e) costs relating to particular steps taken in the proceedings; (f) costs relating to a distinct part of the proceedings; and (g) interest on costs from or until a certain date.’.” 17. Under the proviso of Sub-Section 2 of Section 35 provides that the Court may make an order deviating from the general rule for reasons to be recorded in writing. The plaintiff has filed the suit praying for a decree of a sum of Rs.83,46,507/- along with interest and allied prayers as well as costs. In the suit, the plaintiff had filed an application under Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules of this Court praying for summary judgment. By a judgment dated 8th December, 2022, this Court had disposed of the said application directing the defendant to pay Rs.86,46,507/- to the plaintiff. By the said order, this Court disposed of the suit being CS 133 of 2019 along with the interlocutory application and directed for drawing of a decree. 18. The plaintiff had obtained decree and had filed execution proceeding for realisation of the decreetal amount. The defendant being the judgment debtor had appeared and paid the decreetal amount which was duly accepted by the plaintiff and the Executing Court disposed of the said execution proceeding with full satisfaction. 19. Now, the plaintiff has filed the present application for recalling of the part of the Judgment and Decree dated 8th December, 2022 and permitting the plaintiff to pursue its claim for interest and cost in accordance with the law or in the alternative for modification of the judgment and decree by awarding cost of Rs.40,84,981/-in terms of Section 35 and 35A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 20. Admittedly, this Court while passing the decree has awarded only the principal amount and not pass any decree with respect to interest and cost and this Court has also not recorded any reason for not awarding the cost. After the judgment and decree dated 8th December, 2022, the plaintiff has acted upon and had put the said decree in execution. Admittedly, this Court while passing the decree has awarded only the principal amount and not pass any decree with respect to interest and cost and this Court has also not recorded any reason for not awarding the cost. After the judgment and decree dated 8th December, 2022, the plaintiff has acted upon and had put the said decree in execution. In the execution proceeding, the plaintiff has accepted the decreetal amount and the execution proceeding was disposed of with full satisfaction. Though this Court has passed Judgment and Decree on 8th December, 2022 but the plaintiff has filed the present applications on 9th February, 2024 i.e. about more than 13 months. 21. The suit is disposed of by a Judgment and Decree dated 8th December, 2022 and the execution proceeding is also disposed of with full satisfaction by an order dated 9th February, 2024. At present, no lis is pending before this Court with respect to the claim of the plaintiff. This Court has become functus officio. The plaintiff has prayed for recalling of the part of the Judgment and Decree dated 8th December, 2022 but the decree has already executed with full satisfaction and thus the decree cannot be recalled. 22. As regard, the amendment for modification of the decree by awarding cost of Rs.40,84,981/-, the same also cannot be allowed as the original decree has already been executed with the full satisfaction and there is no provision for amendment of modification of the judgment and the decree once the decree is executed. 23. In view of the above, this Court did not find any merit in the present application. Accordingly, GA-Com No. 6 of 2024 is dismissed.