B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J.

The plaintiffs in the unnumbered suit OSSR. No. 6407 of 2015, aggrieved by the order of the trial Court dated 27.08.2015 running in 13 pages rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (f) CPC on the grounds of no cause of action and no compliance with filing of process with plaint copies to the defendants, impugning the same maintained the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. This Court when came for admission raised objections on maintainability from the alternative remedy of appeal against the order of rejection available as statutory remedy. The learned counsel placed reliance on several expressions of which the expression of the Delhi High Court in Morgan Stanlay Mutual Fund v. Piyush Aggarwal, observed at Para 6 that the power of the superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India given to the High Court for the purpose of seeing justice is meted out fairly and properly and instead of exercising its power under Article 227 even it can direct the petitioner to move application against the ad interim exparte injunction, under Rule 4 of Order 39 or file appeal, from the date of commencement of public issue is 06.01.1994 within 2 days thereafter it becomes futility and no purpose will be served giving such directions. Though where appeal is proved, this Court could not interfere by any peremptory order with the ordinary course of jurisdiction, we cannot loose sight of the fact that in cases wherein grave wrong is manifested and if allowed to continue it may cause ir-repairable loss by following regular procedure, Court must exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The other decision placed reliance is in Kishore Kumar Khaitan v. Praveen Kumar Singh, where at Para 13 the Apex Court held that exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India behoved the High Court to consider whether the order of interim injunction is supported by necessary findings.

3. The jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India may be restrictive in the sense that it is to invoke to correct errors of jurisdiction. But when a Court asks itself a wrong question or approaches the question in an improper manner, even if it comes to a finding of fact, which cannot be said to be one rendered with jurisdiction and it will still be amenable to correction at the hands of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The other decision placed reliance is of Division Bench of this Court in P. Madhusudhan Rao v. Lt. Col. Ravi Manan, it was held at Paras 12 to 14 that the High Court can exercise the supervisory powers under Article 227 against the Courts subordinate to it or the Tribunals subordinate to it to keep the said inferior courts or Tribunal within the limits of their authority and that they did not cross the limits and only the wrong decisions may not be a ground for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227. Unless the wrong is referable to Court, abuse of power or dereliction of duty, it results in grave injustice to any party. Thereby, discretionary power can be exercised sparingly with utmost care particularly in cases where inferior court assumes jurisdiction erroneously in excess of power or refused to exercise jurisdiction or when found an error of law apparent on the face of record or outcome of violation of principles of natural justice or arbitrary or capricious exercise of jurisdiction or authority or finding arrived is perverse and based on no material or a patent or flagrant error in procedure or order in question resulting in manifest injustice or it is error on both facts and law or even otherwise. The other decision placed reliance is Sameer Singh v. Abdul Rab, that availability of alternative remedy of statutory appeal is not a ground always not to exercise the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and on facts the executing Court where does not adjudic