JUDGMENT : B.K. Misra, J. - The Petitioner being aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Rourkela in C.M.A. No. 53 of 2010 (Annexure-5) has approached this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. The material facts of the case are that the Opp. Party of this Writ Petition as Plaintiff had instituted Civil Suit No. 221 of 2005 in the Court of Learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Rourkela for recovery of Rs. 63,35,151 with pendentelite & future interest @ 12% per annum & the present Petitioner was the Defendant in the said suit. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 18.11.2008. To set aside the ex parte decree so passed, the Petitioner-Defendant filed a petition under Order, 9 Rule, 13 of the CPC (C.P.C.) which was registered as C.M.A. No. 99 of 2008 & the same was dismissed on 22.3.2010 for default of the Petitioner. To restore C.M.A. No. 99 of 2008, another C.M.A. which was registered as 53 of 2010 was presented on 16.4.2010 u/s 151 of the C.P.C., but the same was also disallowed on merit by the Court by the impugned order at Annexure-5. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that by dismissal of the prayer in C.M.A. No. 53 of 2010 serious prejudice has been caused to the Petitioner as the Court adopted a too harsh attitude & did not consider liberally in allowing the Misc. Case & in setting aside the ex parte decree. It is alleged that the findings of the Learned Trial Court that the Petitioner was not so ill which prevented him from appearing before the Court when the matter was taken up for hearing are perverse in view of the Medical Certificate produced by the Petitioner & by examining the doctor in support of the illness. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on a decision of this Court as reported in 1985 (II) OLR 155 , Ramanath Misra V. Ganeswar Misra & ors. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Opp. Party on the other hand by placing reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court as reported in : Pravasini Behera Vs. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on a decision of this Court as reported in 1985 (II) OLR 155 , Ramanath Misra V. Ganeswar Misra & ors. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Opp. Party on the other hand by placing reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court as reported in : Pravasini Behera Vs. Sankar Das and seven Ors., raised serious objections about the maintainability of the Writ Petition & further contended that since the facts of Pravasini Behera's case (supra) is identical to the facts of the given case, the ratio decided in Pravasini Behera's case (supra) is binding on this Court since the aforesaid decision stands in full force. The facts of the Pravasini Behera's case (supra) is that she filed Title Suit No. 609 of 1998 against Sankar Das & others but since the Defendants did not appear despite service of notice on them & also when they did not take any steps they were set ex parte on 20.8.1999. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 17.8.2001. Thereafter Misc. Case was filed for setting aside the ex parte decree under Order, 9 Rule 13 of the CPC the same was dismissed on 14.7.2003. Thereafter, after considerable delay another Misc. Case was filed to restore the first Misc. Case, that was also dismissed for default. For setting aside the dismissal Order Dated 6.12.2005 & also to restore Misc. Case No. 588 of 2002, that prayer was also dismissed by the Learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Bhubaneswar. Against the said order of the Learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Writ Petition being W.P.(C) No. 15159 of 2006 was filed on 3.11.2006 & that was allowed by the Learned Single Judge by setting aside the Order Dated 25.10.2006 passed by Learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Bhubaneswar & direction was given for restoration of interim Application No. 71 of 2005 on payment of cost. Challenging the said order of the Learned Single Judge, Writ Appeal No. 73 of 2007 Pravasini Behera Vs. Sankar Das and seven Ors., ; was preferred by Pravasini Behera & while deciding the said Writ Appeal & by taking into consideration the guidelines in Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Others, their Lordships observed as follows:- On this aspect, the Supreme Court has given clear indication & guidelines in Surya Dev Rai's case (supra). Sankar Das and seven Ors., ; was preferred by Pravasini Behera & while deciding the said Writ Appeal & by taking into consideration the guidelines in Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Others, their Lordships observed as follows:- On this aspect, the Supreme Court has given clear indication & guidelines in Surya Dev Rai's case (supra). Before considering those guidelines it may be kept in mind that an ex parte decree has been passed. Such a decree is always appealable under the CPC. It is clear from the conduct of the Writ Petition that such an ex parte decree has been passed in view of his sheer carelessness' & negligence. Normally a Writ Court should not come to the aid of one who is indolent & careless in pursuing the litigation. Apart from that, the orders of the Civil Court would show that there has been repeated dismissals of the application under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC. An order dismissing an application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC ex parte can be appealed against under Order 43, Rule 1, Clause (d). The said remedy is sought to be by passed by creating the subterfuge of an interim application for approaching the Writ Court. Under these circumstances filing of application under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution is impermissible in view of the clear guidelines given in paragraph 38 at page 3056 of the report in Surya Dev Rai's case. In this connection, sub-paras 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 of para 38 are very pertinent. 4. It is the settled law that the High Court may intervene only when the error is such that if it is not corrected at the very moment it would become incapable for correction at a later stage & would result in travesty of justice. In this case there is no material on record to show that the order of the Learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Rourkela is without jurisdiction or that it suffers from any patent error of law & there has been gross failure of justice. In this case there is no material on record to show that the order of the Learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Rourkela is without jurisdiction or that it suffers from any patent error of law & there has been gross failure of justice. It is also the well settled position of law that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate Courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction namely, when the subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise its jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available has been exercised in a manner which is not permissible by law. 5. By applying the ratio in Pravasini Behera's case (supra) when the impugned order in refusing to set aside the ex parte order is an appealable one the present Petitioner can very well file an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 Clause (d) of the C.P.C. & thus Writ Court cannot come to the aid of the Petitioner who was careless in pursuing the litigation. In the circumstances for the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition stands disposed of with a liberty to the Petitioner to approach the appropriate authority by presenting an appeal & in that event the Learned Appellate Court would be free to dispose of the same on its own merit. Nothing in this Judgment shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the order passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Rourkela & the remedy of the Writ Petitioner against the impugned order of the Learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Rourkela is no way impaired by this Judgment.