ORDER :- Defendants 3, 4, 5, and 8, in O. S. No. 132 of 2000, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, are the petitioners. They feel aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28-3-2003, passed in that suit.

2. Respondents 1 to 8 filed the suit for recovery of certain amount, on the strength of as many as 17 pro-notes, marked as Exs. A-1 to A-17, executed between 18-7-1994 and 16-5-1996. Most of the pro-notes were said to have been executed by a firm, known as "Andhra Coffee and Flour Mills", of which the petitioners and respondents 9 to 12 are said to be partners. The pro-notes were said to have been signed by the then Managing Partner, Mr. Kota Narasimhan, who is since dead. The pro-notes in turn, were executed, in favour of respondents 1 to 8, with different combinations.

3. The petitioners and respondents 9 to 12 raised several objections. They pleaded that the suit was bad for joinder of causes of action, that it was defective, inasmuch as the firm was not impleaded, and that the suit claim was barred by limitation. The trial Court decreed the suit.

4. Sri T. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that though a regular appeal, under Section 96 C.P.C., is maintainable against the decree in question, the petitioners are compelled to approach this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, because of the serious procedural irregularity, committed by the trial Court. He submits that though not a single witness was examined, the suit was decreed, and that the Court did not seriously consider the objection, as to misjoinder of causes of action. He further submits that the suit was filed in the year 2000, in relation to the pro-notes that were said to have been executed, between 1994 and 1996, and the trial Court brushed aside the contention, as to the limitation, only on the ground that one of the partners had acknowledged it, without naming the person who is said to have acknowledged, much less, recording a finding thereon.

5. Sri M. Sreerama Murthy, learned counsel for the contesting respondents, on the other hand, submits that the CRP is not maintainable, when a regular remedy of appeal is available to the petitioners. He contends that the pro-notes were executed, for and on behalf of the firm, and in that view of the matter; a single suit was maintainable, to enforce the liability under the pro-notes. He also contends that once all the partners of the firm are made parties, the failure to implead the firm as such, cannot be said to be fatal. Learned counsel submits that the necessity to examine any witness, to prove the pro-notes, was not felt, inasmuch as there was no serious dispute, as to their genuinety or execution.

6. When there exists a regular remedy of appeal, the High Court cannot examine the correctness of a decree, in the proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, it needs to be noticed that the very purpose of conferring supervisory jurisdiction, under Article 227, is to arm the High Court with adequate power, to ensure that the subordinate Courts do not deviate from the settled principles of law, particularly, in the matter of procedure. A clear distinction needs to be maintained as to the adjudication of the findings recorded by the

Courts, on the merits, on the one hand, and examination of deviations, if any, by the subordinate Court, from the settled procedure, on the other hand. While the former is in the exclusive province of remedy of appeal, the latter can certainly constitute the subject matter of the revision, under Article 227. It is in this context that the present matter needs to be examined.

7. The petitioners pointed out three main defects, in the judgment of the trial Court. The first is about the joinder of independent causes of action, second is about non-impleading of the firm, which is said to have executed the pro-notes, and the third is about recording of finding, on the enforceability of pro-notes, though not a s