ORDER 1. Heard finally with consent. 2. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of plaintiff in the suit challenging the order of trial Court dated 20.12.2014 whereby the petitioner's objection in respect of cross-examination of plaintiff's witness by the respondent on the issue of arrears of rent has been rejected. 3. In the suit for eviction filed by plaintiff the defence of respondent was struck off and when at the stage of cross-examination of petitioner's witness Smt Sarla a question was asked by respondent about the rent receipt of 13 months which was objected by the petitioner and said objection has been rejected by trial Court by the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that defence of respondent/tenant was struck off and there is no dispute between the parties about rate of rent therefore, the respondent cannot be permitted to cross-examine the petitioner's witness on the issue of rent receipt. 5. Counsel for respondent has supported the impugned order. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the question which was asked to the petitioner's witness by counsel for respondent was in respect of rent receipt for 13 months. The said question was connected with the issue of arrears of rent. Trial Court in the impugned order has held that even after striking out the defence the respondent is not precluded from cross-examining the petitioner's witness on the issue of arrears of rent. 7. The order passed by the trial Court is a well reasoned order which is duly supported by various judgments of this Court. 8. The Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Kewal Kumar Sharma v. Satish Chandra Gothi and another, reported in 1991 JLJ 86 , has held that even after striking out the defence against eviction, tenant can still cross-examine the witness of the landlord on the issue which does not fall under section 12(i) and if the tenant is denying the arrears of rent or claiming adjustment he can properly contest that issue despite of striking out of his defence. Single Bench of this Court in the matter of Manorama Devi wd/o Parmanand and others v. Suresh s/o Kailash Naraian and others, reported in 1999(1) MPLJ 436 , has taken the similar view by placing reliance upon earlier Division Bench judgments. Single Bench of this Court in the matter of Manorama Devi wd/o Parmanand and others v. Suresh s/o Kailash Naraian and others, reported in 1999(1) MPLJ 436 , has taken the similar view by placing reliance upon earlier Division Bench judgments. 9. So far as the judgment in the matter of Premdas v. Laxmi Narayan Pande, reported in 1964 MPLJ 190, relied upon by counsel for petitioner is concerned, in that case also it has been held that even after striking out the defence against eviction, the tenant can still lead evidence in relation to other defence opened to him. 10. So far as the judgment in the matter of Ramesh Kumar v. Smt. Sudha Gupta and others, reported in 2013(2) JLJ 289 , relied upon by counsel for petitioner is concerned, in that case it has been held that after striking out the defence written-statement cannot be considered and the defence cannot be permitted to put forth by way of other methods including by filing an application under Order 8 rule 1(3) CPC, but in the present case the petitioner has been given permission to cross-examine the witness on the issue of arrears of rent and not on the issue of any ground of eviction. 11. The order which has been passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any patent illegality. 12. Even otherwise, the Supreme Court in the matter of Jai Singh and others v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another, reported in 2010(9) SCC 385 while considering the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution, has held that the jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be exercised to correct all errors of judgment of a Court, or tribunal acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. 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. 13. Hence no case for interference in the impugned order of the trial Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.