JUDGMENT Sujoy Paul, J. 1. Heard. 2. This petition challenges the order dated 17.6.2014, whereby the petitioner's application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is rejected by the court below. 3. Criticizing the said order, Shri Lahoti submits that the error occurred in certain lines of reply are clerical error and therefore, the court below should have allowed the application. In addition, he submits that the outcome of proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2(A) CPC may be penal in nature for the petitioner and, therefore, the court below should have taken a lenient view. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. 5. The court below has rejected the application for amendment on the ground that the reply was filed by the petitioner on 11.5.2014. Thereafter evidence of both the parties are recorded. The present petitioner has already filed affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC and deposed the same statement which is said to be a clerical error in the reply. The court below opined that the error cannot be treated as a clerical error. 6. It is further recorded that for final hearing various opportunities were provided to the petitioner but the petitioner did not file the application for amendment at appropriate stage. 7. The scope of interference under Article 227 is limited. Interference can be made 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, (2010) 8 SCC 329 . 8. In the present case, the court below has assigned plausible reasons for rejecting the application for amendment. The order is not without jurisdiction. Thus, there is no ingredient on which interference can be made by this Court. The court below has rightly exercised its jurisdiction. 9. In the result, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.