JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The plaintiff-petitioner had filed this writ petition against the order dated 29.9.2010 (Annex.15) passed by the learned trial Court of Civil judge (Sr. Division) and A.C.J.M., Nathdwara, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby the learned trial Court clearly contrary to the directions of the appellate Court of learned Additional District Judge, Nathdwara, held that the application under Section 151 C.P.C. filed by the petitioner, was not maintainable. The relevant and operative portion of the order passed by the learned appellate Court dated 19.3.2009 is quoted below for ready reference : " 16- vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g vihy Lohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k rFkk fMdzh fnukad 31-1-2007 dks vikLr fd;k tkrk gSA iwoZ esa izLrqr okn la[;k 196 lu~ 2002 Jh iq:"kksRre cuke~ Jh ukjk;.k yky vkfn fo}ku v/khuLFk flfoy U;k;k/kh'k] ofj"B [kaM] ukFk}kjk ds le{k izLrqr gqvk FkkA ysfdu ;g okn LFkkukUrj.k gksdj flfoy U;k;k/kh'k] ( ofj"B [kaM ) ] ukFk}kjk ds U;k;ky; ds }kjk le>kSrs ds vk/kkj ij fMdzh fd;k x;k FkkA bl izdkj ewyokn la[;k 196 lu~ 2002 fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; flfoy U;k;k/kh'k] dfu"B [kaM dh i=koyh ewyokn la[;k 11 lu~ 2003 Jh iq:"kksRre cuke~ Jh ukjk;.k yky dks fo}ku flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ( ofj"B [kaM ) ukFk}kjk dks Hkstdj ;g funsZ'k fn;k tkrk gS fd os muds U;k;ky; ds ewy okn la[;k 196 lu~ 2002 Jh iq:"kksRre cuke~ Jh ukjk;.k yky vkfn dks iqu% uEcj ij ysdj fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky;] flfoy U;k;k/kh'k dfu"B [kaM ukFk}kjk ds ewy okn izdj.k la[;k 11 lu~ 2003 Jh iq:"kksRre cuke~ Jh ukjk;.k yky dks mDr okn esa /kkjk 151 O;0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr izLrqr izkFkZuk i= ekurs gq, izdj.k dk fof/k vuqlkj fuLrkj.k djsaA " 3. While the directions were clearly to the effect that Suit No. 196/2002 - Purshottam v. Narayan Lal & Ors ., was required to be decided on merits, setting aside the compromise-decree dated 31.1.2007, which was set aside by the appellate Court in that very order dated 19.3.2009 merely because the learned trial Court was left free to decide application while treating Suit No. 11/2003 Purshottam v. Narayabn Lal & Ors . as application under Section 151 C.P.C. filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, still the learned trial Court has rejected the application and thereby nullified the order passed by the appellate Court on 19.3.2009. as application under Section 151 C.P.C. filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, still the learned trial Court has rejected the application and thereby nullified the order passed by the appellate Court on 19.3.2009. The relevant and operative portion of the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court dated 29.9.2010 passed by the learned trial Court below is reproduced herein below for ready reference : mijksDr foospu ds i'pkr~ oknh dh vksj ls izLrqr okn tks izdj.k la[;k 11@2003 izLrqr fd;k x;k ftls ekuuh; vihy U;k;ky; ds vkns'kkuqlkj /kkjk 151 O;ogkj izfdz;k lafgrk ds rgr izkFkZuk i= ekudj mlds laca/k esa lquk x;kA /kkjk 151 O;ogkj izfdz;k lafgrk ds rgr ;g izko/kku gS fd bl lafgrk esa fdlh okn ds ckjs eas ;g le>k tk;sxk fd og ,sls vkns'k dh nsus dh U;k;ky; dh vUrfuZfgr 'kfDr dks ifjlhfer ;k vU;Fkk izHkkfor djrh gS tks U;k; ds mn~ns'; ds fy;s ;k U;k;ky; dh vknsf'kdk ds nq:i;ksx djus ds fy;s vko';d gSA mDr izko/kkuksa ds vuqlj.k esa Hkh tgka fof/k esa Li"V mica/k gS vkSj fof/k fof'k"V :i ls okn dk otZu djrh gS rks ogka vUrfuZfgr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx gekjs er esa fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gksxkA vr% /kkjk 151 O;ogkj izfdz;k lafgrk ds rgr ekuk x;k mDr izkFkZuk i=@okn iks"k.kh; ugha gksus ls [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA blh vuqlkj mDr izkFkZuk i= dk fuLrkj.k fd;k tkrk gSA izdj.k Qsly 'kqxkj gks vkSj i=koyh fu;ekuqlkj vfHkys[kkxkj dks izsf"kr dh tkosA i=koyh la[;k 11@2003 bZ0nh0 Hkh blh vuqlkj fu.khZr dh tkrh gS vkSj vkns'k dh izfr mDr i=koyh ij Hkh j[kh tkosaA rFkk mDr i=koyh iqu% flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ( d0[k0 ) ukFk}kjk dks fu;ekuqlkj okLrs vfxze dk;Zokgh izsf"kr gksA vkns'k [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k tkdj fy[kk;k x;kA sd/- egsUnz dqekj esgrk flfoy U;k;k/kh'k o0[k0 o vfrfjDr eq[; U;kf;d eftLV~sV ukFk}kjkA " 4. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the learned trial judge has clearly disobeyed the directions of the appellate Court and has acted against the judicial discipline, which to say the least, he was expected and bound to maintain. 5. In the case of Official Liquidator v. Dayanand & Ors. reported in (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 943 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court as held as under : "It is distressing to note that despite several pronouncements on the subject, there is substantial increase in the number of cases involving violation of the basics of judicial discipline. 5. In the case of Official Liquidator v. Dayanand & Ors. reported in (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 943 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court as held as under : "It is distressing to note that despite several pronouncements on the subject, there is substantial increase in the number of cases involving violation of the basics of judicial discipline. The learned Single Judges and Benches of the High Court refused to follow and accept the verdict and law laid down by coordinate and even larger benches by citing minor difference in the facts as the grounds for doing so. Disrespect to the constitutional ethos and breach of discipline have grave impact on the credibility of judicial institution and encourages chance litigation. Predictability and certainty is an important hallmark of judicial jurisprudence developed in this country in last the six decades and increase in the frequency of conflicting judgments of the superior judiciary will do incalculable harm to the system inasmuch as the Courts at the grass roots will not be able to decide as to which of the judgments lay down the correct law and which one should be followed. In our constitutional set up every citizen is under a duty to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions. Those who have been entrusted with the task of administering the system and operating various constituents of the State, have to set an oath to act in accordance with the Constitution and uphold the same, have to set an example by exhibiting total commitment to the constitutional ideals. This principle is required to be observed with greater rigour by the members of judicial fraternity who have been bestowed with the power to adjudicate upon important constitutional and legal issues and protect and preserve rights of the individuals and society as a whole. Discipline is sine qua non for effective and efficient functioning of the judicial system. If the Courts command others to act in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and rule of law, it is not possible to countenance violation of the constitutional principle by those who are required to lay down the law." 6. Discipline is sine qua non for effective and efficient functioning of the judicial system. If the Courts command others to act in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and rule of law, it is not possible to countenance violation of the constitutional principle by those who are required to lay down the law." 6. It is indeed unfortunate that the trial Court caring the least for the orders and clear terms of order of the higher appellate Court, has rejected the application of the plaintiff-petitioner under Section 151 C.P.C. and in fact has dismissed the suit, which clearly falls foul with the order of the appellate Court. The impugned order of the learned trial Court dated 29.9.2010, primafacie, cannot be sustained and the present writ petition of the plaintiff-petitioner deserves to be allowed. 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned order of learned trial Court dated 29.9.2010 is quashed and set aside and the trial Court is directed to decide the Suit No. 196/2002 Purshottam v. Narayan Lal & Ors . on merits in accordance with law. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties and the learned Presiding Officer of trial Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division) and A.C.J.M., Nathdwara, who has passed the order dated 29.9.2010 forthwith.Petition Allowed. *******