1. In a Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the Code”), challenging an order of the trial Court refusing to condone the delay of 862 days in seeking to set aside an ex­parte decree for specific performance, the High Court found that the ex­parte decree was a nullity, as it was passed against a minor without the minor being represented by a guardian duly appointed in terms of the procedure contemplated under Order XXXII,  Rule 3 of the Code.  Therefore, the High Court, exercising its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, set aside the ex­parte decree itself on condition that the petitioners before the High Court/defendants pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/­, representing the amount already spent by the decree holders in purchasing stamp paper etc.  Aggrieved by the said order of the High Court, the decree holders are before us in this special leave petition.

22. The contention that in a revision arising out of the dismissal of a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the High Court cannot set aside the ex­parte decree itself, by invoking the power under Article 227, does not appeal to us. It is too well settled that the powers of the High Court under Article 227 are in addition to and wider than the powers under Section 115 of the Code. In Surya Dev  Rai   vs.  Ram  Chander  Rai  and  Others, this Court went as far as to hold that even certiorari under Article 226 can be issued for correcting gross errors of jurisdiction of a subordinate Court.  But the correctness of the said view in so far as it related to Article 226, was doubted by another Bench, which resulted in a reference to a three member Bench. In Radhey Shyam & Anr. vs. Chhabi   Nath  &   Others, the three member Bench, even while overruling  Surya  Dev  Rai  (supra) on the question of jurisdiction under Article 226, pointed out that the jurisdiction under Article 227   is   distinguishable.   Therefore, we   do   not   agree   with   the contention that the High Court committed an error of jurisdiction in invoking Article 227 and setting aside the ex­parte decree.

33. Therefore, we find no illegality in the order of the High Court warranting our interference under Article 136. Hence, this Special Leave Petition is dismissed.