JUDGMENT (Prayer: Revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution against the order dated 19.07.2021 passed in C.S.No.133 of 2019 and C.S.No.184 of 2021 on the file of the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction (Commercial Division) of this Court.) M. Duraiswamy, J. 1. Challenging the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in C.S.No.184 of 2021, the defendant in the said suit has filed the Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. 2. On scrutinizing the papers, the Registry raised a query as to the maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition under Article 227. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that the Civil Revision Petition is very much maintainable before the Division Bench of this Court challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge and in support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court reported in 2018 SCC Online Guj 1515 [State of Gujarat Vs. Union of India] wherein the Division Bench has stated as follows: “… 33. Even otherwise, considering the wordings used in Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, there is a serious doubt whether the bar under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act shall be applicable to the petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act reads as under: “8. Bar against revision application or petition against an interlocutory order - Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no civil revision application or petition shall be entertained against any interlocutory order of a Commercial Court, including an order on the issue of jurisdiction, and any such challenge, subject to the provisions of section 13, shall be raised only in an appeal against the decree of the Commercial Court. ... 41. In view of the above and for reasons stated above and considering the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to hereinabove, our conclusions in nutshell are as under: (1) The bar contained under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act against entertainability of “civil revision application or petition” against the interlocutory orders passed by the subordinate/Commercial Courts, shall not be applicable to the writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (2) The bar contained in Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act shall not affect the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in respect of the orders, including interlocutory orders, passed by the Commercial Court and writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India may be entertainable, however, subject to the following observations and restrictions:- (a) Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate Courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When the subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. (b) The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India may not be exercised to correct mere errors of fact or of law and may be exercised only when the following requirements are satisfied:- (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby (c) A patent error is an error which is self-evident, i.e., which can be perceived or demonstrated without involving into any lengthy or complicated argument or a long-drawn process of reasoning. Where two inferences are reasonably possible and the subordinate court has chosen to take one view the error cannot be called gross or patent. (d) The power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasion. (d) The power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasion. Care, caution and circumspection need to be exercised, when any of the above said two jurisdictions is sought to be invoked during the pendency of any suit or proceedings in a subordinate court and error though calling for correction is yet capable of being corrected at the conclusion of the proceedings in an appeal or revision preferred there against and entertaining a petition invoking certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction of High Court would obstruct the smooth flow and/or early disposal of the suit or proceedings. The High Court may feel inclined to intervene where the error is such, as, if not corrected at that very moment, may become incapable of correction at a later stage and refusal to intervene would result in travesty of justice or where such refusal itself would result in prolonging of the lis. (3) Though while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court may annul or set aside the act, order or proceedings of the subordinate courts, it may not substitute its own decision in place thereof. (4) In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, the High Court may not only give suitable directions so as to guide the subordinate Court as to the manner in which it would act or proceed thereafter or afresh, the High Court may in appropriate cases, itself make an order in supersession or substitution of the order of the subordinate Court as the Court should have made in the facts and circumstances of the case. (5) That while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court would have to consider the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paragraph-39 in the case of Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai (supra), which are as under: “39. Though we have tried to lay down broad principles and working rules the fact remains that the parameters for exercise of jurisdiction under Article-226 or 227 of the Constitution cannot be tied down in a straitjacket formula or rigid rules. Not less than often the High Court would be faced with dilemma. Though we have tried to lay down broad principles and working rules the fact remains that the parameters for exercise of jurisdiction under Article-226 or 227 of the Constitution cannot be tied down in a straitjacket formula or rigid rules. Not less than often the High Court would be faced with dilemma. If it intervenes in pending proceedings there is bound to be delay in termination of proceedings. If it does not intervene, the error of the moment may earn immunity from correction. The facts and circumstances of a given case may make it more appropriate for the High Court to exercise self-restraint and not to intervene because the error of jurisdiction though committed is yet capable of being taken care of and corrected at a later stage and the wrong done, if any, would be set right and rights and equities adjusted in appeal or revision preferred at the conclusion of the proceedings. But there may be cases where a stitch in time would save nine'. At the end, we may sum up by saying that the power is there but the exercise is discretionary which will be governed solely by the dictates of judicial conscience enriched by judicial experienceand practical wisdom of the Judge”. 4. It is settled law that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When the Subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. It is also settled law that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution may not be exercised to correct mere errors of fact or of law and may be exercised only when the following requirements are satisfied: (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. 5. The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 can be exercised by the High Court only in the case of Subordinate Courts. 5. The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 can be exercised by the High Court only in the case of Subordinate Courts. The learned Single Judge of this Court cannot be termed as a subordinate to High Court. When the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be termed as an order passed by the Court Subordinate to High Court, Article 227 has no application. In such view of the matter, the ratio laid down by the Gujarat High Court is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6. We are of the considered view that the Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution filed challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court is not maintainable. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P(SR).No.92516 of 2021 is rejected. No costs.