no man, as was the case in Jang Singh [AIR 1966 SC 1631 : (1964) 2 SCR 145] . While it would be necessary to consider the facts of the case to determine whether the inadvertent mistake was due to any action of the court it would be appropriate to find that the ultimate permission to deposit the challaned amount is that of the court. 21. Proceeding as above, in the instant case we find that the decree did not quantify the purchase money having only said “Rs 41,082 less the amount of ‘zare panjum’ ”. Of course, ‘certum est quod certum reddi potest’— that is certain which can be rendered certain. The amount of ‘zare-panjum’ was not specified. Parties do not controvert that it was one fifth. But the amount was not calculated by the court itself. Inadvertent error crept in arithmetical calculation. The deficit of Rs 100 was a very small fraction of the total payable amount of Rs 33,682 which was paid very much within the fixed time, and there was no reason, except for the mistake, as to