ORDER : 1. Sri. K.R. Ashok Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Naveen N. learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the parties, the same is heard finally. 3. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the orders dated 08.01.2018 and 06.04.2018. Facts giving rise to the filing of the petition, briefly stated are that respondent No. 1 filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 21.02.2010 executed by one Sri. K.T. Ashok in favour of plaintiff and subsequent renewal of sale agreement dated 19.08.2011 executed by the same party in respect of the suit property. While recording the evidence of Plaintiff witness No. 1, the Trial Court marked renewal of sale agreement as Ex.P2 and admitted the same in evidence vide order dated 08.01.2018. It is the case of the petitioner that when the aforesaid order was passed, the counsel for the petitioner was not present. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a application for review of the order dated 08.01.2018, which was also dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated 06.04.2018. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Trial Court ought to have appreciated that the renewal of sale agreement dated 19.08.2011 was not sufficiently stamped and the same was a separate and independent document. It was further submitted that the clauses embodied in the renewal of sale agreement were altogether different and did not stipulate any time limit and further a clause was added to meet the then requirement of parties and the document ought to have been impounded as per Section 5(2)(e) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have supported the order passed by the Trial Court and has submitted that renewal of agreement was executed only to extend the time and there was no fresh agreement. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The relevant extract of the agreement reads as under: Clause 1 - The parties herein have agreed to the terms and conditions to the sale agreement dated 21.10.2010 entered into between them apart from the conditions mentioned in this agreement for renewal. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The relevant extract of the agreement reads as under: Clause 1 - The parties herein have agreed to the terms and conditions to the sale agreement dated 21.10.2010 entered into between them apart from the conditions mentioned in this agreement for renewal. Clause 2 - The vendor herein has agreed and accepted that he has received Rs. 38,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Eight Lakhs only) as advance sale consideration by way of cash before the witnesses. 6. From perusal of the aforesaid clauses as well as the schedule property, it is evident that the subject matter of the agreement is the same and the renewal agreement was executed at the time of execution of original agreement had expired. Merely because the renewal agreement did not contain any stipulation with regard to the time limit, within which the sale deed was to be executed or that the vendors were required to join his family members in executing the agreement, it cannot be said that new agreement had come into existence. The Trial Court has therefore, rightly held that renewal of agreement was not a fresh agreement and did not require any fresh stamp duty. The order passed by the Trial Court neither suffers from any jurisdictional infirmity nor any error apparent on face of the record warranting interference of this Court in excise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 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 the 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. Jai Singh and Others vs. M.C.D. and Others, (2010) 9 SCC 385 , Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 and Radhey Shyam and Another vs. Chhabi Nath and Others, (2015) 5 SCC 423 . 7. In the result, the petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.