Sudhir Agarwal, J.— 1. Sri B.B. Paul, learned counsel for petitioner stated that he has not been able to prepare the matter and therefore cannot assist the Court and wants accommodation. In this case, names of almost a dozens of counsels namely Sri B.D.Mandhyan, Sri Dr. Madhu Tandon, Sri K.N. Tripathi, Sri M. Tandon, Sri Sanjeev Kumar, Sri Satish Mandhyan, Sri Sharad Mandhyan, Sri Shashi Nandan and Sri Tarun Agrawal are shown in the cause list appearing for petitioner. This case was listed before this Court on 8.5.2012 when none appeared on behalf of petitioner and therefore, it was dismissed in default. It is worthy to notice at this stage that earlier also this case was listed and dismissed for want of prosecution and recalled, namely, on 12.3.2012 it was dismissed in default and thereafter restored on 25.4.2012. 2. It was listed before this Court on 1.8.2012 when it was directed to be taken up on 3.8.2012 in order to accommodate the counsels for petitioner. On 3.8.2012 also in view of resolution of Bar Association for abstaining from work, this matter was directed to come up today and today a new counsel has appeared and says that he is not prepared with the matter. In the above circumstances, I decline to accept the request for adjournment. 3. Since no other counsel has appeared and no arguments are advanced by Sri B.B. Paul, I myself have perused the record. 4. Writ petition is directed against the order dated 11.10.1983 passed by Judge, Small Causes, Allahabad decreeing the suit of landlord- respondent for ejectment and arrears of rent etc. and the order dated 25.7.1984 passed by respondent no. 1 rejecting petitioner's revision. 5. From the record, it is borne out that a suit was filed by Sri Amar Nath Agarwal son of Late Sri Kedar Nath Agarwal in 1975, against Sri Jagdish Narain Agarwal, his nephew, for arrears of rent and ejectment. The suit was decreed for arrears of rent. It was dismissed for the relief of ejectment. The revision was also dismissed. In the writ petition filed against the Judgment Hon. N.D. Ojha J. ( as he then was) deciding the issues raised before him, remanded the matter on 16.2.1983 to the Judge Small Causes Court for a decision. The Judge Small Causes Court decreed the suit on 11.10.1983. It was dismissed for the relief of ejectment. The revision was also dismissed. In the writ petition filed against the Judgment Hon. N.D. Ojha J. ( as he then was) deciding the issues raised before him, remanded the matter on 16.2.1983 to the Judge Small Causes Court for a decision. The Judge Small Causes Court decreed the suit on 11.10.1983. The revision against the same was dismissed on 25.7.1984 giving rise to this writ petition pending in this Court since 1984. 6. Having gone though the impugned orders as also pleadings and grounds taken in writ petition, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the orders impugned in this writ petition warranting interference. Findings of fact have been recorded which have not been shown perverse or contrary to material on record. I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere. The scope of judicial review under Article 227 is very limited and narrow as discussed in detail by this Court in Writ Petition No. 11365 of 1998 (Jalil Ahmad Vs. 16th Addl. Distt. Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others) decided on 30.7.2012. There is nothing which may justify judicial review of orders impugned in this writ petition in the light of exposition of law, as discussed in the above judgment. 7. In view of above, I do not find any reason to interfere. 8. Dismissed. 9. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. _