JUDGMENT Anil Kumar, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Vivek Singh holding brief of Shri U. N. Misra, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that respondent No. 1/Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) may be directed to decide the regular suit No. 523/2012 (Ram Sagar v. Naththu (dead) 1/1 Vijay Kumar Dixit) as earliest as possible. 3. I have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the records. 4. Supervisory power under Article 227 , High Court can correct errors of jurisdiction committed by subordinate Courts. It also held that when subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned, the Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. 5. Further, the High Court while invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution must take into consideration that it would exercise such powers most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority. The power of superintendence exercised over the subordinate courts and tribunals does not imply that the High Court can intervene in the judicial functions of the lower judiciary. The independence of the subordinate courts in the discharge of their judicial functions is of paramount importance, just as the independence of the superior courts in the discharge of their judicial functions. 6. In Shalini Shyam Shetty and another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329 , Hon'ble the Apex Court held that power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and Courts subordinate to High Court. 7. In Abdul Razak (D) through Lrs. & others v. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle and others (2010) 2 SCC 432 , Apex Court reminded that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227, High Courts should not act as if they are exercising an appellate jurisdiction. 8. 7. In Abdul Razak (D) through Lrs. & others v. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle and others (2010) 2 SCC 432 , Apex Court reminded that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227, High Courts should not act as if they are exercising an appellate jurisdiction. 8. In T.G.N. Kumar v. State of Kerala and others (2011) 2 SCC 772 , it has been held that power of superintendence conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is both administrative and judicial, but such power is to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority. 9. Recently, Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Jacky v. Tiny @ Antony and others 2014 (32) LCD 2042 after placing the reliance on the earlier judgment on the point in issue in paragraph no. 15 (Jai Singh and others v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another, (2010) 9 SCC 385 , held as under : - "15. We have anxiously considered the submissions of the learned counsel. Before we consider the factual and legal issues involved herein, we may notice certain well recognised principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Undoubtedly the High Court, under this article, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate courts as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals, exercise the powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they act in accordance with the well-established principles of law. The High Court is vested with the powers of superintendence and/or judicial revision, even in matters where no revision or appeal lies to the High Court. The jurisdiction under this article is, in some ways, wider than the power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is, however, well to remember the well-known adage that greater the power, greater the care and caution in exercise thereof. The High Court is, therefore, expected to exercise such wide powers with great care, caution and circumspection. The exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well-recognised constraints. It can not be exercised like a "bull in a china shop", to correct all errors of judgment of a court, or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. The High Court is, therefore, expected to exercise such wide powers with great care, caution and circumspection. The exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well-recognised constraints. It can not be exercised like a "bull in a china shop", to correct all errors of judgment of a court, or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice." 10. Further, well-recognised principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to ensure that all subordinate courts as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals, exercise the powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they act in accordance with the well-established principles of law. The High Court is vested with the powers of superintendence and/or judicial revision, even in matters where no revision or appeal lies to the High Court. 11. The jurisdiction under this article is, in some ways, wider than the power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is, however, well to remember the well-known adage that greater the power, greater the care and caution in exercise thereof. The High Court is, therefore, expected to exercise such wide powers with great care, caution and circumspection. The exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well-recognised constraints. 12. In view of the above said facts, I do not find any good ground or reason to expedite the suit in question, rather on the ground which has been shown by the petitioner that preference cannot be given in the present case to be heard at an early date over the other matters/suits which are pending in the same court filed prior to the present matter. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed.