CRP 495/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA Heard Mr. A Roshid, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India h as been filed by the petitioner/defendant challenging the orders dated 23.11.201 0, 29.11.2010 and 07.12.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Hailakandi in Mo ney Suit No.7/2009 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to allow him to submit evidence on affidavit. The respondent as plaintiff filed a money suit being M.S. No.7/2009 befo re the learned Civil Judge, Hailakandi against the petitioner. On receipt of sum mons, the petitioner who was the defendant appeared and filed his written statem ent. The case was fixed for filing DW/evidence on affidavit by the petitioner/de fendant on 15.07.2010. The petitioner could not file the evidence on affidavit d ue to his illness on the date fixed i.e., 15.07.2010. Accordingly next date was fixed on 08.11.2010 for the same. However, on 08.11.2010 also the evidence on af fidavit could not be filed and on the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, t he learned Court granted time to file evidence on affidavit by fixing next date as 23.11.2010. On 23.11.2010, the petitioner filed an application praying before the Court to allow him to appear and file evidence on affidavit within one mont h. But the learned Court rejected the prayer so made by the petitioner by closin g the evidence of defendant and fixed 29.11.2010 for argument. On 29.11.2010, a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner praying therein to vacate the ord er passed on 23.11.2010 and allow the petitioner to submit evidence on affidavit within one month. The Court granted time and fixed 07.12.2010 for argument. In the meanwhile, petitioner’s mother died on 05.12.2010. On 07.12.2010 again an ap plication was filed on behalf of the petitioner for vacating the order of argume nt and allow the petitioner to file evidence on affidavit within one month. Howe ver, the same was rejected by the learned trial Court and the Court fixed 10.12. 2010 for argument and after completion of argument the case has been fixed on 23 .12.2010 for delivery of judgment. The instant application, therefore, has been filed for setting aside the orders dated 23.11.2010, 29.11.2010 and 07.12.2010 and to allow the petitioner to file evidence on affidavit. I have perused the impugned orders. Perusal of the same would reveal tha t on several occasions, the petitioner was granted time as prayed for to file ev idence on affidavit and despite granting of several adjournments as prayed for, he has failed to submit the same and the evidence of defendant was closed accord ingly as far back as on 23.11.2010 fixing 07.12.2010. On 07.12.2010, learned cou nsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondent has advanced his argument but the le arned counsel appearing for the defendant/petitioner did not turn up till rising of the Court to argue the matter. However, for the ends of justice the Court ag ain allowed the petitioner to argue before the next date fixed if he so desires fixing 10.12.2010 for judgment. Thereafter, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the next date has been fixed on 23.12.2010 for delivery of j udgment. Exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited and restrictive in nature. It is so exercised in normal circumstances for want of jurisdiction, errors of law, perverse findings to name a few. I do not find any perversity, jurisdictional error or errors of law in p assing the impugned order calling for interference of this Court in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In view of the same, I am constrained to hold that no interference is ca lled for with the impugned orders dated 23.11.2010, 29.11.2010 and 07.12.2010 pa ssed by the learned Court below. This revision petition is found to be devoid of merit, the same is dismi ssed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.