CRP 338/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE I.A. ANSARI Heard Mr. JC Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioner. This is an application, made under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cha llenging the order, dated 15-07-2011, passed, in Title Suit No. 370 of 2009, by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Guwahati, whereby the learned trial Court has fixed t he suit for cross-examination of PW3 and as far as the cross-examination of PW2 is concerned, the learned trial Court has directed that the same may be allowed provided that the defendant-petitioner pays the cost of Rs. 300/- and take steps for issuance of summon to the PW2. By filing a petition on the very day, when the order, dated 15-07-2011, was pass ed, it was contended, on behalf of the defendant, that the cross-examination of PW2 had been impliedly closed by the Court. The learned trial Court pointed out, in its subsequent order passed, on 15-07-2011 itself, that the cross-examinatio n of PW2 had not been closed, but it had been made subject to payment of cost as indicated above. Apart from the fact that this Court does not find any infirmity in the order, da ted 15-07-2011, the fact remains that Article 227 of the Constitution of India c annot be invoked for correction of erroneous orders. Merely because of the fact that an order is erroneous, the same cannot become the subject-matter of a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India unless the order is with out jurisdiction or perverse. In the present case, the order is not without jurisdiction nor can it be said to be perverse. In fact, the order cannot be confidently said to be erroneous. Eve n if there were two views possible in a given situation, which might have arisen in a trial Court, the High Court would not substitute its view by invoking Arti cle 227 in place of the views of the trial Court. In the circumstances indicated above, this Court does not find any reason to int erfere with the impugned order. This revision is, therefore, not admitted and shall accordingly stand dismissed. No order as to costs. Before parting with this revision, it is, however, made clear that the observati ons, made above by this Court and its decision not to interfere with the impugne d order, dated 15-07-2011, have been passed in the light of the scope of Article 227 and would, therefore, remain open for challenge by the petitioner if the su it happens to be decided in favour of the defendant and an appeal is preferred b y the petitioner.