ORDER 1. THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21-8-1998 PASSED BY THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CIVIL REVISION NO. 3456 OF 1998. 2. IT APPEARS THAT TWO SHAREHOLDERS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT COMPANY FILED A SUIT UNDER SECTION 91 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SEEKING A DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST THE 1ST RESPONDENT COMPANY FROM REDEEMING FULLY SECURED DEBENTURES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GUIDELINES OF SEBI. THE SUIT WAS DECREED. NONE OF THE DEBENTURE-HOLDERS, WHO WOULD BE PARTIES AFFECTED, FILED ANY APPEAL OR CHALLENGED THE DECREE. 3. THE PRESENT APPELLANTS FILED A REVISION IN THE HIGH COURT UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION. THE HIGH COURT HAS DISMISSED THE REVISION ON THE GROUND THAT ARTICLE 227 IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE REMEDY AND THAT IF THE APPELLANTS ARE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT PUBLIC INTEREST, THEY SHOULD CHALLENGE THE DECREE IN AN APPROPRIATE FORUM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 4. IT WAS SUBMITTED, BASED ON THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN SURYA DEV RAI V. RAM CHANDER RAIL THAT THE REVISIONAL JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURT CAN ALWAYS BE EXERCISED WHERE THE SUBORDINATE COURT IS FOUND TO HAVE ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF KEEPING THE SUBORDINATE COURT WITHIN BOUNDS WHEN THE SUBORDINATE COURT HAS ASSUMED JURISDICTION WHICH IT DID NOT HAVE OR HAS FAILED TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION WHICH IT DOES HAVE. THERE CAN BE NO DISPUTE TO THIS PROPOSITION OF LAW. WE, HOWEVER, DO NOT FIND THIS TO BE A CASE FALLING UNDER ANY OF THOSE CATEGORIES. WE, THEREFORE, SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE. 5. THE APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED WITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. 6. WE, HOWEVER, CLARIFY THAT THE APPELLANTS ARE AT LIBERTY APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS, IF, IN LAW, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO DO SO.