SHRIMAL, Member – The facts in nut shell are that the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer delivered it judgment, Against that Mangaram filed a review petition No.1/2000 on which was admitted on 15.5.2000. The Board of Revenue was pleased to pass an order to maintain status quo as on date of order after hearing both the parties. The copy of the order was also sent to Additional Collector Nohar. (2). The Additional Collector after passing of the stay order dated 7.8.2000 passed an order 24.12.2001 under which entries in revenue record were made. (3). When the fact of the stay order passed by the Board of Revenue was brought to the notice of the Additional Collector. He corrected the mistake and re-called his order dated 24.12.2001 by order dated 20.12.2002. (4). Against this above noted order the petitioners has filed this revision. (5). I, find no merit in this revision petition. It is a settled position of law that sub-ordinate courts are bound to abide by the decisions and directions of superior courts. It is a matter of judicial propriety and discipline. Moreover no party should be allowed to suffer for the mistake of a court. The courts have inherent power to correct the mistake rather it is bound to do so. This court is exercise of revisional powers have limited jurisdiction. There is no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the matter of exercise of jurisdiction in passing order dated 20.12.2002. (6). In Mulraj vs. Murti Raghunath Ji Maharaj (1), the Honble Supreme Court has observed. Though the court which is carrying on execution is not deprived of the jurisdiction the moment a stay order is passed, even though it has no knowledge of it, this does not mean that when the court gets knowledge of it, it is powerless to undo any possible injustice that might have been caused to the party in whose favour the stay order was passed during the period till the court has knowledge of the stay order. We are of opinion that Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure would always be available to the court executing the decree, for in such a case, when the stay order is brought to its notice, it can always act under Sec. 151, and set aside steps taken between the time the stay order was passed and the time it was brought to its notice, if that is necessary in the ends of justice and the party concerned asks it to do so. Though, therefore, the court executing the decree cannot in our opinion be deprived of its jurisdiction to carry on execution till it has knowledge of the stay order the court has the power in our view to set aside the proceedings taken between the time when the stay order was passed and the time when it was brought to its notice, if it is asked to do so and it considers that it is necessary in the interests of justice that the interim proceedings should be set aside. But that can only be done by the court which has taken the interim proceedings in the interest of justice under Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure provided the order is brought to its knowledge and a prayer is made to set aside the interim proceedings within a reasonable time. Otherwise the interim proceedings in our opinion are not a nullity and in the absence of such exercise of power by the court executing the decree under Sec. 151, they remain good for all purposes. (7). The revision petition is dismissed at admission stage and order of the lower court dated 20.12.2002 is up held. Pronounced in the open court.