JUDGMENT H.N. Agrawal, Member. - This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree dated July 15, 1970 passed by Sri S.M. Hasan, Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad in Appeal No. 287/726-Pratapgarh, allowing the appeal and setting aside the order dated July 19, 1969 passed by the Judicial Officer, Sadar, Pratapgarh in proceedings in execution of a decree for division of holding under Section 176, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. The only point arising in this appeal is whether a clerical error in the map can be corrected in accordance with the actual measurements after the passing of the final decree in a division of holding suit. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the can indeed be done at any time under Section 151, C.P.C. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that this cannot be done. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has in support of his contention referred to two decisions, one of the Supreme Court and the other of the Calcutta High Court. In Ganesh Prasad v. Monohar Lal, AIR 1940 Calcutta 202, it has been held that a clerical error in a decree can be corrected at any time even if the error has been brought to the notice of the Court belatedly. The Calcutta High court has also cited the decision in Swire, Mellor v. Swire, (1885) 30 Ch.D. 239 in which Mr. Bowan, J. has observed that every Court has inherent power over its own record so long as those records are within its power, and it can set right any mistake in them. It seems to me perfectly shocking if the Court could not rectify an error which is really the error of its own minister. 5. In Samarendra v. Krishan Kumar, AIR 1967 S.C. 1440 the Supreme Court has held as follows: "Now, it is well settled that there is an inherent power in the court which passed the judgment to correct a clerical mistake or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission and to vary its judgment so as to give effect to its meaning and intention." The learned counsel for the respondent could not cite any authority to challenge the above view. I, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that a clerical error in the map could be corrected at any time by the Court even after the finalisation of the decree. The learned Additional Commissioner has committed a gross error in law in holding that the trial court had no power to correct the map. The purpose of the courts is to provide justice and not to shut the doors of justice in a blind manner. 6. The record shows that a clerical error had crept in the map and the learned Judicial Officer had rightly ordered that the map shall be drawn in accordance with the lots. The Vakil Commissioner appointed the trial court has already gone to the spot and redrawn the map in accordance with the lots after due measurements. The judgment of the learned Judicial Officer is perfectly sound in law and has been incorrectly reversed by the learned Additional Commissioner. 7. I hereby allow the second appeal, set aside the order of the lower appellate court, and restore the order of the trial court.