JUDGMENT 1. This is a somewhat curious case. Two properties were advertised for sale. The properties were separate and the sale took place of only one of these properties. There was some mistake in the sale certificate as it included both the properties, whereas the second property was not sold at all. Possession was delivered of both the properties in accordance with the sale certificate, but the mistake was afterwards discovered. An application was made to the Munsif In whose Court the proceeding was pending for the rectification of the error and he directed the rectification. He directed that the sale certificate be produced and amended and he also directed that the delivery of possession of the second property should be cancelled. This was a matter of which he could take cognizance of his own motion. It is an inherent power of a Court to rectify an apparent error. The matter would also come under sec 244 of the Code, the question being one between the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor and relating to the satisfaction or discharge of the decree. 2. The District Judge, however, took the view that sec 244 of the Code did not cover a case like the present. He forgot that the case was one in which it was not necessary that an application under sec 244 to set aside the sale should be made. Sec 244 however would cover a proceeding like the present. The District Judge should also have remembered that the Court committing a blunder, as the Court of first instance did in this case, has power to rectify it of its own motion. We accordingly set aside the order of the District Judge and restore that of the Munsif with costs. We assess the hearing-fee in this Court at one gold mohur.