JUDGMENT H.P. Asthana, J. - This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and arises under the following circumstances. The Plaintiff Har Govind brought a suit for a declaration that he was the owner and the bhumidhar of certain agricultural plots; that the Defendants had no right, title or interest therein. He claimed a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants firm interfering with his possession of the disputed plots and in the alternative he claimed possession over these plots. The applicants pleaded that they were the asamis of the disputed 1and and that they had obtained lease of these plots from the Defendant No. 6 who on account of his physical infirmity was incapable of cultivating them. The trial court framed several issues in the case. The two relevant issues which are issues No. 4 and 5 are as follows. Issue No. 4: Whether Defendants Nos. 2 and 5 are the asamis of the land in suit. Issue No. 5: Whether the Defendant No. 6 was physically incapable to cultivate as alleged and was entitled to execute the alleged lease After the issues were framed an application was made on behalf of the applicants to remit the issues Nos. 4 and 5 to the Revenue Court for a finding in view of the provisions contained in Section 338B of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951) The trial court did not agree to refer the issue No. 5 to the Revenue Court for a decision and preferred to decide itself. It. therefore, passed an order that the issue No. 5 would be decided by itself and if after the decision of issue No. a it was necessary to refer the issue No. 4 to the Revenue Court for a finding it would be done. It is against this order that the present application has been made before me. The relief which has been claimed by the applicants is that the aforesaid order of the learned Munsif dated 22-10-1955 might be modified or set aside and the learned Munsif be directed to refer both the aforesaid issues to the Revenue Court for decision. The application has been opposed on behalf of the Plaintiff. 2. The only question which arises for consideration is whether the application under Article 227 of the Constitution is maintainable in the circumstances of the present case. The application has been opposed on behalf of the Plaintiff. 2. The only question which arises for consideration is whether the application under Article 227 of the Constitution is maintainable in the circumstances of the present case. It is conceded on behalf of the applicants that the order of the learned Munsif does not amount to a case decided and therefore no revision lies against an order u/s 115 Code of Civil Procedure. In my opinion Article 227 does not appear to abrogate the ordinary law. Where a remedy is provided under the ordinary law to a party he cannot invoke the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution to set right a certain mistake which has been committed by a court. In my opinion this Article is applicable only to those cases where the ordinary law does not provide remedy to a party and if the order of a court is allowed to stand it is likely to cause grave injustice to the party against whom such an order has been made. There can be no doubt that in the present case it will be open to the applicants to challenge the decision of the learned Munsif in case it goes against them on any of the grounds open to them. If the learned Munsif wrongly assumes jurisdiction and decides the question of the tenancy rights himself it will be open to the applicants in appeal from the decree of the learned Munsif to agitate that question and to contend there that the learned Munsif had no right to decide the question of tenancy rights and, therefore, his finding on that issue was vitiated. It was held by a Bench of this Court in L. Har Saran Dass and Others Vs. Mukandi Lal and Others, AIR 1951 All 514 that the power given under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution should be restricted to interference in cases of grave dereliction of duty for which no other remedy is available and which would have serious consequences if not remedied. No such grave consequence would follow if a suit is tried at a particular place and not at some other place and even if such a consequence does follow, the court of appeal has right to correct the error u/s 21, CPC and as such, no interference is necessary under Articles 226 or 227. 3. In Narendra Nath Sashmal Vs. No such grave consequence would follow if a suit is tried at a particular place and not at some other place and even if such a consequence does follow, the court of appeal has right to correct the error u/s 21, CPC and as such, no interference is necessary under Articles 226 or 227. 3. In Narendra Nath Sashmal Vs. Binode Behari Dey and Others, AIR 1951 Cal 138 it was held by a Bench of the Calcutta High Court that Article 227 of the Constitution was meant to be applicable only in those cases where there was no other way of securing justice and where the order, if allowed to stand, would cause great hardship and injustice to the party against whom it had been made. It was also held in this case that this Article was to be applied rarely in correcting the mistakes of the lower courts where such mistakes could be corrected either in appeal or in revision. 4. In State of U.P. v. Abdul Aziz and Ors. 1955 A.W.R. (H.C.) 546 it was held by a Bench of this Court that the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution was not a power given to the High Court to correct errors, otherwise, it would be tantamount to a right to entertain appeals on law and fact. It was held that the right should be exercised only in cases where the courts have clearly done something which they were not entitled to do and the power must be used to keep the courts below within the bounds prescribed by law for such courts that the powers of superintendence were exercised primarily through Section 115 CPC and Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. It was further held that the duty of the High Court was to ensure that subordinate courts and tribunals were kept within the bounds of their authority; that it was not its duty in the exercise of its powers of Superintendence to correct mere errors of facts or law unless the latter were apparent on the face of the record and there was no adequate alternative. Nor should (sic) be so exercised as to result in alternation in the judicial system the maintenance of which should be its object to uphold. Nor should (sic) be so exercised as to result in alternation in the judicial system the maintenance of which should be its object to uphold. It was further laid down in this case that Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, gave the High Court power to revise an order of a subordinate court on certain limited grounds provided that order was one from which no appeal lay to the High Court and which had been made in a case which had been decided; that the decision of an issue which did not result in the termination of the suit was not a case decided and the remedy of the dissatisfied party was by way of appeal at a later stage, that in such circumstances the High Court was not justified in setting aside an order which had not resulted in the termination of a suit in the exercise of its powers Under Article 227 for by so doing it would, in effect, be extending the provisions of Section 115 to cases which did not come within the ambit of that section and the result of such a course would be not only to prolong the time taken in hearing such a suit but would introduce an element of uncertainity in the administration of justice which it was most desirable to avoid. 5. It would appear from an examination of the above authorities that the powers conferred on this Court Under Article 227 should be sparingly used only in those cases where the alleged wrong cannot be remedied under the ordinary law. In the present case the learned Munsif was competent to decide issue No. 5. Even though the finding on that issue may be of some help in determining the issue No. 4 relating to asami rights. It was not disputed before me that so far as the issue No. 4 was concerned the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction to decide it in view of the provisions contained in Section 332B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. I do not think that merely because the finding on issue No. 5 with regard to the incapacity to cultivate would be of some help in deciding the question of asami rights, the civil court is deprived of its jurisdiction to decide that issue. I do not think that merely because the finding on issue No. 5 with regard to the incapacity to cultivate would be of some help in deciding the question of asami rights, the civil court is deprived of its jurisdiction to decide that issue. I may further add that any finding given by the civil court on issue No. 4 will not be binding on the Revenue Court. If it is called upon to decide the issue No. 4 with regard to the asami rights of the applicants that court will have to decide this question on the evidence which is produced before it by the parties concerned. In this view of the matter I do not think that the learned Munsif had no jurisdiction to decide the issue No. 5. As has already been stated above, even if for some reason or other it is found that the learned Munsif had no jurisdiction to decide issue No. o that is a matter which can be agitated in appeal from the decree passed by the learned Munsif. I do not think that the finding on issue No. 5 is so material to the case and is likely to cause such grave injustice to the applicants that it could not be remedied in appeal and that it calls for any immediate interference by this Court. 6. In the circumstances I am of opinion that the present application is not maintainable. It is, therefore, rejected. The record of the case shall be sent down to the court below for early disposal of the case. The opposite parties shall get their costs of this Court.