ORDER Shiv Dayal Shrivastava, J. This petition arises out of an order passed by the Sub-Judge, Sehore on an application made by the Plaintiff under Section 152, Code of Civil Procedure code. In Civil Suit No. 22 of 1957, the Plaintiff claimed the suit land to have been purchased by him from the Defendant for Rs.600 by a sale-deed dated 29th February 1956. The grievance was that the revenue authorities did not recognise the sale-deed and did not order mutation in favour of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff, therefore, claimed a decree for a declaration of his title on the basis of the said sale-deed as also for possession of the said land. The Defendant did not appear before the trial Judge. By his judgment dated 18th April 1957 the learned Sub-Judge, Sehore passed a decree in favour of the Plaintiff. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows: I, therefore, decree Plaintiff's suit with costs against the Defendant and declare that the Plaintiff is the owner of the land in suit and is entitled to get it mutated in his name in the Tehsil Record. The order of Tehsil Sihore dated 29-12-1956 is null and void and ineffective against the Plaintiff. Frame decree accordingly and mention the particulars of the land in suit therein. Obviously the trial Judge did not say anything about possession in the operative portion of the judgment. Neither the relief was disallowed nor a specific direction was given as to the delivery of possession of the land to the Plaintiff. On 1st January 1958, the Plaintiff made an application to the Sub-Judge of Sehore inviting his attention to the mistake which the Plaintiff calls a clerical mistake and requested that the same be rectified under Section 152, Code of Civil Procedure code. The learned Sub-Judge has dismissed the application only on the ground that a review could not lie after such an inordinate delay. Aggrieved by the said order, the Plaintiff has come to this Court and his grievance is that his application was not one for review but it was for rectifying the mistake and that this was a fit case where the Court should have corrected its own error. On a perusal of the judgment of the learned Sub-Judge, Sehore dated 18th April 1957, I find that in para. 4 of the judgment he held that the sale-deed (Exh. On a perusal of the judgment of the learned Sub-Judge, Sehore dated 18th April 1957, I find that in para. 4 of the judgment he held that the sale-deed (Exh. P/1) stood proved and as such the Plaintiff was the owner of the land. He further said: He (i.e. the Plaintiff) is, therefore, also entitled to get the land purchased by him. The words "entitled to get" clearly indicate that the Court found the Plaintiff to be entitled to be put in possession of the land purchased by him. I am, therefore, clear in my mind that in the operative portion of the judgment, the Court, just by inadvertance, omitted to give the direction that the Plaintiff be put in possession of the land. In my opinion, the Plaintiff cannot be denied the substantial relief for which he brought the suit and which the Court decreed. While dismissing the application under Section 152, Code of Civil Procedure code, the learned Sub-Judge has also said that a relief which is not granted, must be taken as refused, a principle which is well-known. But here, as I have pointed out above, the Court actually wanted to give the relief and was satisfied that the Plaintiff had proved that ho was the owner of the land and was thus entitled to get it. It is, therefore, not a case where the above principle would apply. It is well-settled that when the decree does not correctly express what was really decided and intended by the Court, the Court has inherent powers to amend the decree so as to carry out its own meaning. The conclusion, therefore, is that the omission to grant the relief of possession was just by inadvertence and the same must be rectified under the provisions of Section 152, Code of Civil Procedure code. This revision petition is allowed and the order of the learned Sub-Judge, Sehore dated 18th January 1958 is set aside. I direct that the judgment dated 18th April 1957 passed by Shri P.D. Saxena, Sub-Judge, Sehore in Civil Suit No. 22 of 1957 and the decree passed on the basis of that judgment be both corrected and the following words be added after the words "...and is entitled to get it mutated in his name in the Tehsil record": The Plaintiff shall be put in possession of the suit property. Since nobody appears on behalf of the non-applicant to contest this application, there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed