B. K. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THE comedy of inadvertent error is the real cause in this miscellaneous civil application moved by the petitioners herein who are respectively a practicing senior advocate in the district Court at Jamnagar and the courts subordinate thereto and his client who was original opponent of Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 52 of 1981 on the file of the Court of learned Assistant Judge Jamnagar filed by the wife of petitioner No. 2 for the custody of their child. In the said custody proceedings petitioner No. 2 moved the Court for raising preliminary issue about the competency of the main application. This he did by presenting an application to the Court on 13/11/1981 vide Ex. 27. The learned Assistant Judge by his order of 27/11/1981 rejected the said application and refused to raise the preliminary issue as prayed for. Petitioner No. 2 therefore moved the learned Assistant Judge for review of the said order on 22/12/1981 which was numbered as Review Application No. 6/81. Petitioner No. 2 was represented by petitioner No. 1 as his Advocate in the said review application. It is to admitted position that there were many typographical errors in the said application. One such error which has offended the learned Judge was just in the opening part after the cause title therein. The said review application opened with a prayer which read as under:ay IT PLEASE YOUR DISHONOURIt is not in dispute that the junior Advocate of petitioner No. 1 corrected the errors in the said review application. Unfortunately however he missed to correct the aforesaid error in the opening part of the application. The review application came to be rejected by the order of the learned Assistant Judge of 25/02/1982 Before parting with the matter the learned Assistant Judge in paragraph 5 of his order observed as under:" before parting with this matter I would like to make few observations about the behaviour of the applicant. because the order below his application Ex. 27 has gone against him. he has gone (and his advocate also) to the extent of committing contempt of this court by using words MAY IT PLEASE YOUR DISHONOR. In his application for review which has been filed by him and which has been drafted by his advocate he has made necessary corrections in his application Ex. I wherever there was mistake and or typographical error. In his application for review which has been filed by him and which has been drafted by his advocate he has made necessary corrections in his application Ex. I wherever there was mistake and or typographical error. When all other typographical errors have been corrected it is not possible to conclude or say that it might be the typographical error while using these words. Had it been so then certainly it could have been corrected when all other errors have been corrected. In typographical error there may be a mistake in spelling hut word DIS as a prefix of HONOUR would certainly not appear and/or would not be typed by mistake. Thus it seems that the word DIS as prefix of HONOUR has been intentionally used to abuse and insult and lower down the authorities of this Court" ( 2 ) THE petitioners have therefore moved this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution read with sec. 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for expunging and/or deleting from the order the aforesaid remarks. ( 3 ) WHEN this matter was placed before me for admission by an order of 19/04/1982 liberty was given to the petitioners to move the learned Assistant Judge offering unconditional apology for the error which had remained uncorrected in the review application and the learned Assistant Judge was directed to report to this Court if he is satisfied about the bonafide of the petitioners that the said error was inadvertently overlooked while correcting the other typographical errors which report was to be submitted by 29/04/1982 ( 4 ) THE learned Assistant Judge in his report inter alia stated that some false averment have been made in the present petition regarding the learned Judge calling the junior of petitioner No. 1 and asking him to make corrections and that the said junior Advocate Mr. Dhruv has filed a false affidavit in a judicial proceeding before the Court and in his opinion therefore petitioner No. 1 as well as his junior advocate appeared to be guilty of professional misconduct by making false averment in the petition and by falsely verifying it and supporting it by false affidavits. Dhruv has filed a false affidavit in a judicial proceeding before the Court and in his opinion therefore petitioner No. 1 as well as his junior advocate appeared to be guilty of professional misconduct by making false averment in the petition and by falsely verifying it and supporting it by false affidavits. The learned Judge has thereafter referred to the two transfer applications made by two different clients of petitioner No. 1 in November and December 1981 seeking transfer of their appeals from the Court of the learned Assistant Judge by making allegations against him about his being prejudiced. In the circumstances therefore the learned Assistant Judge staled that it would not be possible that he would call Mr. Dhruv Junior Advocate of petitioner No. 1 for corrections as stated in the affidavit of Mr. Dhruv in this Court. He therefore concluded as under in paragraphs 8 9 and 10:" Looking to the above background and circumstances it is not possible to believe or accept that the error of word DISHONOR was a typographical error and/or that it was inadvertently made and/or inadvertently overlooked while correcting the other mistakes. I therefore am not satisfied with the apology tendered by Shri N. M. Badiani9 Shri N. M. Badiani typist Jayshree B. Dave would not have or could not have typed application for review on her awn because drafting requires a legal skill. I am therefore not satisfied that she committed any mistake while typing the application. even if it be assumed that it was so it was a gross carelessness which cannot be overlooked and it constitutes misconduct in discharge of professional duties. From the advocate Court expects milch higher standard of conduct care and caution"10 If Their Lordships deem it fit to take necessary actions the same may be taken against them u/sec. 15 (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 5 Permission was granted to the learned Advocate for the petitioners to convert the aforesaid miscellaneous civil application into special civil application and also to delete the name of the opponent since to relief is asked for against her and because this court is moved also under sec. 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for exercising its inherent powers to expunge the remarks made against the petitioners. 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for exercising its inherent powers to expunge the remarks made against the petitioners. ( 5 ) I and of the opinion that the remarks made by the learned Assistant Judge in paragraph 5 of his order of 22/12/1981 rejecting the review application were not relevant for deciding the controversy between petitioner No. 2 and his wife which was pertaining to the custody of their child. It is a settled regal position that lower under sec. 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to expunge remarks made by a Judge of a subordinate Court is an extraordinary power and should be exercised only when a clear case is made out and the question is not whether another Judge would have made these particular remarks hut whether the Judge in making those remarks has acted improperly or not (vide: State of Assam v. Ranna Mohammed AIR 1967 SC 903 )- In the context of sec. 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code 1898 the Supreme Court in Raghubir Saran v. State of Bihar AIR 1964 SC 1 ruled that every High Court a the highest Court exercising criminal jurisdiction in a State has inherent power to make any order for the purpose of securing the ends of justice and it external to expiation or ordering expunction of irrelevant remarks trade against a person who is neither a party nor a witness to the proceeding from a judgment or order of a subordinate court although the matter has not been brought before it in regular appeal or revision and would be exercised by it is appropriate cases for securing the ends of justice. The Supreme Court however cautioned that this being an extraordinary power it will not he pressed aid aid except for remedying a flagrant abuse by a subordinate court of its power such as by passing comment upon a matter not relevant to the controversy before it and which is unwarranted or is likely to harm or prejudice another. Power under sec. 151 of the Civil Procedure Code is wider than the power conferred on the Court under sec. Power under sec. 151 of the Civil Procedure Code is wider than the power conferred on the Court under sec. 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code and whatever the ends of justice may require the High Court can in exercise of its inherent power pass appropriate orders in the matter and the inherent powers are to be exercised by the Court in very exceptional circumstances for which the Code lays down no procedure (vide: Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raju AIR 1962 SC 527 . The learned Advocate for the petitioners was therefore justified in urging that in the first instance the remarks against petitioner No. 1 were uncalled for since in the review application were not less than half-adozen places where the Court has been referred to with great respect and in any case after the permission was granted by this Court to offer an unconditional apology which was offered by petitioner No. 1 in unconditional terms nothing survived thereafter which would justify the learned Judge in making the report as he did that the offer of apology was not genuine and bona fide. The learned Advocate further submitted that so far as petitioner No. 1 was concerned he was neither a party nor a witness in the action and therefore the comments which have been made by the learned Judge apart from being highly improper were totally irrelevant for deciding the controversy before him. In any case he submitted that before making the comments the learned Judge ought to have given an opportunity of hearing to petitioner No. 1. I am of the opinion that the learned Advocate for the petitioners was justified in making the grievance that the comments were irrelevant for purpose of deciding the controversy particularly against petitioner No. 1 which could not have been made against him. The remarks against petitioner No. 2 also who is completely illiterate and does not know how to read or write anal that he has signed the pleadings documents etc. by putting his thus marks were who all irrelevant and not justified and their retention on the record will cause serious harm to them while their expunction will not affect the reasons of the order by which the review application was rejected. by putting his thus marks were who all irrelevant and not justified and their retention on the record will cause serious harm to them while their expunction will not affect the reasons of the order by which the review application was rejected. If the learned Judge was of the opinion that a particular action of a party and/or his advocate (the opening part of the application in the present case) amounted to contempt of Court he could have made a reference as provided under sec. 15 (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 In the present report the learned Judge has requested this Court if it so thinks fit to take proceedings under sec. 15 (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 without making a proper reference which has a recognized connotation in criminal proceedings since the alleged contempt would amount to if at all Criminal contempt. ( 6 ) THE result therefore is that this petition is allowed and the remarks made by the learned Assistance Judge Jamnagar in paragraph 5 of his order of 25/12/1981 rejecting the review application No. 6/81 are expound There should he no order as to costs. petition allowed. .