Judgment :- W. M. P. No. 3565 of 1990 is filed by the petitioner, who is the respondent in W. P. No. 8427 of 1989 to expunge the remarks made by me in W. P. No. 8427 of 1989 on 12-2-1990. 2. Learned Advocate General appearing for the petitioner herein points out that the statement made in the counter-affidavit filed in W.P. No. 8427 of 1989, that "the affidavit order is in force" was erroneous and that it was only a genuine error caused on account of mistakes and omissions in the office of the City Government Pleader, which in turn misled the learned Government Advocate who prepared the counter-affidavit in that writ petition. The learned Advocate General further states that the averments in the counter-affidavit are not made wantonly but it was only a genuine mistake. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not aware of the details due to communication gap between the petitioner office and the office of the City Government Pleader, with regard to the stage of the suit and the interim order passed thereon in the suit pending before the City Civil Court. 3. I have gone through the affidavit filed by the petitioner and I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned Advocate General. 4. A reading of the affidavit filed by the petitioner shows that the statement made in the counter-affidavit in W. P. No. 8427 of 1989 to the effect that "injunction order is in force" was erroneous and that it was a genuine error caused on account of mistakes and omissions on the part of the law officers of the State. The petitioner, who was the respondent in W. P. No. 8427 of 1989, explains before me how the law officers of the State have acted in a careless manner and as such she has been misdirected in signing the counter-affidavit. The fact remains that the statement made in the counter-affidavit filed in W. P. No. 8427 of 1989 to the effect that injunction order was still in force is a mistake. The petitioner explains in the affidavit how the mistake has occurred, in spite of all reasonable vigilant steps taken by her. 5. The fact remains that the statement made in the counter-affidavit filed in W. P. No. 8427 of 1989 to the effect that injunction order was still in force is a mistake. The petitioner explains in the affidavit how the mistake has occurred, in spite of all reasonable vigilant steps taken by her. 5. In Vinod Kumar Singh v. Banaras Hindu University 1988 AIR(SC) 371, 1988 (1) CCC 90, 1987 (4) JT 304 , 1987 (2) Scale 1046 , 1988 (1) SCC 80 , 1988 SCR 941 , 1988 (1) UJ 57 ) the Supreme Court has held that once the Court pronounced the judgment, the same should not be reopened unless there be some exceptional circumstance or a review is asked for and is granted. The Supreme Court in the above mentioned judgment, has further held that in very exceptional cases, under S.151 of the Civil P.C., the Court has undoubted power to alter or modify a judgment, delivered but not signed, and such power should be exercised judicially, sparingly and for adequate reasons. This is a case where the judgment was dictated in open Court and was signed. Though in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in W. M. P. No. 3565 of 1990, it is stated that the statement made in the counter-affidavit in the writ petition is erroneous, treating it as an exceptional case and taking note of the fact as stated by the petitioner in paragraph 8 of the affidavit that she has earned the reputation as a good and sincere officer and that her reputation will be adversely affected by the remarks made in W. P. No. 8427 of 1989, I am inclined to expunge the remarks made by me in the order in W. P. No. 8427 of 1989, dated 12-2-1990, as mentioned by the petitioner in para 5 of her affidavit filed in support of W. M. P. No. 8565 of 1990. 6. I do hope that at least in future, officers like the petitioner herein will not come before this Court with such petitions praying for expunging of remarks. They should take due care before signing in the counter-affidavits with regard to the facts set out in the affidavits. 7. 6. I do hope that at least in future, officers like the petitioner herein will not come before this Court with such petitions praying for expunging of remarks. They should take due care before signing in the counter-affidavits with regard to the facts set out in the affidavits. 7. It is to be mentioned that the affidavit of the petitioner accuses the law officers of the State in toto and I am sure the State will see that law officers perform their duties properly and diligently, without giving room to such complaints in future. 8. In the result, W. M. P. No. 3565 of 1990 is allowed as prayed for. Petition allowed.