ORDER : Alok Aradhe, J. 1. Heard. 2. In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 21-11-2015 by which the application filed by the petitioner under section 151 read with Order 3, Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected. 3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Mr. Praveen Saraf had no authority to appear on behalf of respondents as respondents have not executed, any Vakalatnama in favour of the petitioner. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. From perusal of the order passed by the trial Court it is evident that Mr. Vivek Jain and Mr. Praveen Saraf in whose favour the parties to the suit have not executed any Vakalatnama have been participating in the proceeding before the trial Court, therefore, the trial Court has rejected the application preferred by the petitioner. Besides that, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner at any point of time has not raised any objection with regard to the authority of the counsel appearing on behalf of respondents before the trial Court. The order passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any jurisdictional error or any infirmity warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Even otherwise it is well settled in law that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be exercised to correct all errors of a judgment of a court acting within its limitation. It can be exercised where the orders is passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law and justice. [See: Jai Singh and others v. M.C.D. and others, (2010) 9 SCC 385 and Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, 2010(4) M.P.L.J. (S.C.) 590 = (2010) 8 SCC 329 ] In the instant case the impugned order is not passed in violation of fundamental principles of law and justice warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 6. In view of the preceding analysis, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.