Sudhir Agarwal, J.— 1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Sri A.K. Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record. 2. Writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.12.2002. It appears that S.C.C. Suit No. 17 of 1979 was filed by respondent no. 2 which was dismissed by the Trial Court vide judgment dated 30.8.1993 whereagainst she filed S.C.C. Revision No. 148 of 1993. Despite service of notice and appearance put in through counsel, petitioner failed to appear before the Revisional Court as a result whereof Revisional Court passed an order to proceed ex parte on 20.1.1997 and the Revisional Court thereafter allowed the revision ex parte vide judgment and decree dated 21.7.2000 reversing Trial Court's judgment. Petitioner thereafter filed application for recall of ex parte decree but the same has also been dismissed on 24.12.2000. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that due to transfer of cases from 6th Addl. District Judge to 5th Addl. District Judge, petitioner, in absence of any information, could not appear. However, this statement has been found to be totally incorrect by the Revisional Court and it has been observed that by High Court's notification, 6th Addl. District Judge was re-designated as 5th Addl. District Judge and the cases pending before 6th Addl. District Judge continued with 5th Addl. District Judge. This fact was mentioned in Revisional Court's order dated 29.10.1997 and, thereafter, on the next date i.e. 20.11.1997 both the parties appeared before the Court but revision could not be taken up for hearing. Therefore even after its re-designation, on one date. petitioner's counsel appeared before Revisional Court but thereafter chose to remain absent. In these circumstances, this contention is incorrect. 4. Counsel for petitioner further submitted that petitioner is not the tenant of accommodation in question for respondent no. 2, therefore the revisional order is perverse. This aspect has been considered in para 10, 11 and 12 of revisional order and in the entire writ petition, the findings recorded therein have not been assailed as perverse or contrary to record. I, therefore, 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 justifying interference. I, therefore, 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 justifying interference. The scope of judicial review under Article 227 is very limited and narrow as discussed in detail by this Court in Writ-A 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 order impugned in this writ petition in the light of exposition of law, as discussed in the above judgment. 5. In view of above, I do not find any reason to interfere. 6. Dismissed. 7. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. _____________