ORDER : The two applications of the respondent-defendants in I.A.Nos.12 & 13 filed under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC, 1908 having been allowed with a cost of Rs.1,000/in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in the case K.K.Velusamy vs. N.Palanisamy, (2011) 11 SCC 275 , the court below has reopened the case by the impugned order dated 22.06.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-F and thereby has facilitated the further cross examination of PW1 by the respondents. 2. The contention of the petitioner that there is absolutely no material such as Medical Certificate, etc. for the court below to form an opinion as to the 1st respondent being away at Coimbatore for medical treatment, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, is bit difficult to accept especially when the said order is a product of exercise of discretion; ordinarily such orders do not merit deeper examination at the hands of writ court exercising limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; it is more so when the said applications are allowed on a cost of Rs.1,000/-. 3. The contention vehemently advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the decision in Velusamy’s Case is being contrary to the decision of the Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Arjun Singh vs. Mohindra Kumar and others, AIR 1964 SC 993 is per incurium, does not avail for treatment by this Court, especially when the said decision in the case of Velusamy has been approved by a subsequent decision of Apex Court in the case of Bagai Construction vs. Gupta Building Material Store, (2013)14 SCC Page 1. 4. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of C.N.RUDRAMURTHY VS. BARKATULLAH, (1998) 8 SCC 275 has held as under: “In Shobha Surendar's case the High Court had proceeded to rely upon Padmanabha Rao's case; when the matter was brought to this Court though no specific reference was made to Padmanabha Rao's case, this Court stated that the law laid down in D.C. Bharia's case would be applicable, it was not open to the High Court to state that it would prefer to follow the decision in Rattan Arya's case. Indeed it is a matter of judicial discipline that required that when this Court states as to what the law on the matter is, the same shall be binding on all the Courts within the territory of India. This mandate of Article 141 of the Constitution is not based on any doctrine of precedents, but is an imprimatur to all courts that the law declared by this Court is binding on them”. Thus the Article 141 which makes the law declared by the Apex court binding on all, is not founded on the doctrine of precedent. That being so, a dicta of the Apex Court cannot be disobeyed on the ground of arguably its being per incurium. In the above circumstances, writ petition stands rejected in limine.