ORDER : Sri. Dayalu K.N., learned counsel for petitioners. 2. Heard on the question of admission. 3. Taking into account the order, this court deems it proper not to issue notice to the respondents on the application. 4. In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 13.11.2018 passed on I.A.No.67 by which the application preferred by the petitioners/impleading applicants under Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”, for short) has been rejected. 5. The facts giving raise to filing of the application are that on 29.08.2003, the plaintiffs have filed a suit seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction in O.S.No.38/2003 before the Senior Civil Judge, Tarikere. On 03.11.2003 and 13.04.2012, defendant Nos.3 and 9 filed their written statement. Thereafter the parties adduced evidence and when the case was fixed for final arguments, the petitioners filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code seeking impleadment on the ground that they are the daughters of Late John J. Pinkatt. The trial court vide impugned order dated 13.11.2018 has rejected the aforesaid application. 6. The learned counsel for petitioners submits that the trial court ought to have appreciated that the petitioners are necessary parties to the suit as they are the legal representatives of Late John J. Pinkatt having vital interest in the subject matter of suit. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs in the suit had not opposed their impleadment and therefore the trial court ought to have allowed the application filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code. 7. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for petitioners, and perused the records. 8. On perusal of the records, it is admitted that the civil suit was instituted in the year 2003. It is also not in dispute that evidence in the said suit has already been recorded and the case is posted for final arguments. At the stage of final arguments, the petitioners moved an application seeking impleadment. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners have not mentioned the date on which they came to know about the pendency of the suit. The proceedings in the suit are at the verge of conclusion. At the stage of final arguments, the petitioners moved an application seeking impleadment. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners have not mentioned the date on which they came to know about the pendency of the suit. The proceedings in the suit are at the verge of conclusion. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this court, after a period of fifteen years from the date of institution of the suit, the application for impleadment filed by the petitioners cannot be entertained. It is pertinent to note that so far the application made by the learned counsel for petitioners has not been opposed by the plaintiffs. Suffice it say that the plaintiffs did not file any reply to the application for imleadment and therefore, it cannot be inferred that they had given consent for the impleademnt. The said discretion has been exercised on sound principles of law by the trial court. In the circumstances, it has been held that the plaintiffs are trying to drag the proceedings and it is nothing but abuse of process of law and no sufficient reasons have been made out in the affidavit filed in support of the application. 9. 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 exercise 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. {See: ‘JAI SINGH AND OTHERS VS. M.C.C. AND OTHERS’, (2010) 9 SCC 38 , AND ‘SHALINI SHYAM SHETTY VS. RAJENDRA SHANKAR PATIL’, (2010) 8 SCC 329 ] and ‘RADHEY SHYAM AND ANOTHER vs. CHHABINATH AND OTHERS’, (2015) 5 SCC 423 . In the instant case, the impugned order is not passed in violation of fundamental principles of law justice warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 10. In the fact situation of the case, this court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.