JUDGMENT 1.Heard. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order Annexure P/1 and P/2 whereby his application under Order 14 Rule 5 C.P.C. is decided and the issue is not framed in the manner it was desired by him. 3. In nutshell, the argument of petitioner is that plaintiff has filed suit for treating him to be an indigent person. In written statement the petitioner/defendant No.1 disputed the same. The court below although framed additional issue No. 6 in this regard but failed to frame it in a proper manner. By Annexure P/2 the burden is given on the petitioner to prove the same whereas it should have been on the plaintiff. 4. I do not see much merit in this petition. In the opinion of this Court while deciding the issue no. 6, the court below can examine the question of entitlement of plaintiff as an indigent person. Both the parties can lead their respective evidence in this regard. This is no jurisdictional error in the order. 5. The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited. If order is shown to be passed by a Court having no jurisdiction, it suffers from manifest procedural impropriety or perversity, interference can be made. Even an erroneous order is not required to be corrected in these proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution. The basic purpose of exercising the said jurisdiction is to keep the courts below within the bounds of their authority. Interference can be made sparingly for the said purpose and not for correcting error of facts and law in a routine manner. Another view is possible, is not a ground for interference. This view is taken in Shalini Shyam Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 . 6. The court below has taken a plausible view. There is no ingredient on which interference can be made in this petition. Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.