JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff petitioner, perused the writ petition and its enclosures. 2. Under the impugned order dated 13.10.2000 the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Sikar has rejected the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC. 3. The learned trial Court has considered each and every aspect of the matter and rejected this application by a speaking order. I do not find any error apparent on the face of the order which calls for any interference of this Court therein u/Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Though, the plaintiff-petitioner has made manifold contentions in the matter but I do not consider it appropriate to give any decision thereon as it may affect the right of the plaintiff-petitioner to challenge the impugned order in the regular appeal to be filed if necessity arises against the final judgment and decree in the suit of the learned trial Court, if the same goes adverse to him. 5. The petition u/Art. 227 of the Constitution of India is not a remedy as a rule of right. Ordinarily against the interlocutory orders passed by the civil Court in the civil suit the petition under this provision is not to be entertained and the reason is very obvious that the order is always subject to correction in the regular appeal to be filed by the litigant. Against such orders earlier the revision petition under section 115 of the CPC were available but after the amendment in the CPC that right has been taken away. The intention of the legislation behind it is that the orders may attain finality at the stage, the litigants may not stall the finality of the suit by challenging the interlocutory orders. 6. That apart this Court may not justify in exercising its jurisdiction u/Art. 227 of the Constitution of India in every case of this nature. The Parliament has in its wisdom not provided any appeal or revision against the interlocutory order passed by the civil Court in civil suit. The object is to give finality to the decision at the stage. This Court u/Art. 227 of the Constitution of India cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. The Parliament has in its wisdom not provided any appeal or revision against the interlocutory order passed by the civil Court in civil suit. The object is to give finality to the decision at the stage. This Court u/Art. 227 of the Constitution of India cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice where grave injustice would be done unless this Court interferes in the matter. 7. In the facts of this case as this interlocutory order is subject to is correction in the regular appeal, non-interference of this Court in the matter will not result causing any injury to the plaintiff petitioner. 8. In the result, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, dismissal of this writ petition will not come in the way of the plaintiff-petitioner to challenge the impugned order in the regular appeal to be Vied by him, if necessity arises, against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court if goes adverse to him. 9. Consequent upon the dismissal of the writ petition, the stay application filed therewith does not survive and the same is also dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******