JUDGMENT : P.S. Dinesh Kumar, J. 1. Petitioner, in this writ petition, has called in question the order dated 16.1.2015 on I.A.No.5 in FDP No.189/2010 on the file of XX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City. 2. Heard Shri Basavaraj R. Bannur, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri T.S.Chandraprabhu, learned Counsel for the caveator/respondent No.1. 3. In the final decree proceedings, in pursuance of a Judgment and Decree for Partition in O.S.No.3267/1995, the petitioner filed the instant application seeking impleadment on the premise that the second floor portion of Schedule 'A' property was bequeathed in favour of the petitioner under a Will dated 16.3.1993 by S.Veerabhadrappa, father of respondents No.1 to 6. By the order impugned, the Court below has dismissed the said application. 4. Shri Basavaraj R. Bannur, argued in support of the petition, urged a solitary contention that the dismissal of I.A.No.5, by the Court below is unsustainable in law as it would compel the petitioner to file a suit, which would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing this writ petition. 5. Refuting petitioner's argument, learned Counsel for the respondents Shri T.S.Chandraprabhu, submitted that the petitioner has been making constant but unsuccessful attempts to stake it's claim over the property belonging to the respondents. Amplifying his contention, he submitted that the inter-se lis among the family members stood concluded by the Judgment and Decree in RFA No.312/2004 passed by this Court on 23.9.2010. The petitioner, also challenged the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court in this Court in RFA No.1150/2011. The said appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on 19.6.2012, reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek review of the Judgment in RFA No.312/2004. The petitioner, filed a review petition bearing No.202/2014 in RFA No.312/2004. The said petition also stood dismissed on 4.7.2014. The petitioner, on an earlier occasion, had filed a similar application for impleadment in the FDP proceedings on 21.8.2011. The said application also stood dismissed for non-prosecution. Now, the petitioner has come up with the instant application numbered as I.A.No.5, seeking impleadment. He argued that the petitioner, is thus abusing the process of law and accordingly prayed for dismissal of this writ petition. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. Now, the petitioner has come up with the instant application numbered as I.A.No.5, seeking impleadment. He argued that the petitioner, is thus abusing the process of law and accordingly prayed for dismissal of this writ petition. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. The solitary ground urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that, the dismissal of the impleadment application by the Court below leads to multiplicity of proceedings. 8. A careful analysis of the facts of this case, leads to an irresistible conclusion that, the petitioner has made untiring, but unsuccessful attempts in staking it's claim over the second floor of the Schedule 'A' property. 9. The suit was filed in the year 1995. The final decree proceedings have been initiated in the year 2010. The petitioner filed a similar application on 21.8.2011 and did not diligently pursue the same, resulting in its dismissal for non-prosecution on 30.10.2003. The petitioner, has now filed the instant I.A.No.5 on 9.4.2014. 10. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.1, is right in his submission that, repeated application for impleadment, in the facts of this case borders on abuse of process of law, particularly, after dismissal RFA No.312/2004 and the Review Petition No.202/2014 in RFA No.312/2004. The respondents have been litigating for their rights for nearly a quarter of a century. 11. Petitioner is not diligent in prosecuting its case. In the circumstances, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the Court below. The respondents are being drawn to Court time and again on the very same application and deserve to be compensated. 12. Resultantly, this Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- payable to the respondents. 13. In view of dismissal of the writ petition, I.A.No.1/2016 does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of. No costs.