The petitioner is a practicing Advocate. He is aggrieved by an order dated 2. 8. 85 passed by Shri K. C. Gogoi, Sadar Munsiff, Guwahati in Title Suit No. 103 of 1984 directing the issue of notice to him, as well as to the defendant in that case whom he was representing, to show cause as to why proceedings for contempt of Court should not be drawn up against them. The facts are very brief. In a title suit the Munsiff allowed the prayer of the defendant to file a written statement. The order was made conditional on payment of a sum of Rs. 200/- by way of cost. The defendant through his counsel, the petitioner herein, filed a petition depositing a sum of Rs. 200/- by way of cost in terms of the order of the Court. In the said petition, in paragraph 2, it was stated as below: "That the award of the costs of Rs. 200/- (Rupees two hundred) only by the Court's order dated 3. 7. 85 is excessive and arbitrary. But the defendant is depositing the cost to comply with the order but without prejudice to his any right to knock the door of superior Courts for setting aside the said order awarding the costs." The Court took exception to the use of the expressions "excessive" and "arbitrary" in the petition. These expressions or "remarks" appeared to him to be contemptuous. He took "serious exception" to it as according to him it had maligned the Court and its decorum. Having formed such an opinion, the Court directed the Advocate Mr. R. K. Jain and his client Paras Nath Shah to show cause as to why a contempt of Court proceeding should not be drawn up against them for their aforesaid remarks made in the petition. Aggrieved by this action of the learned Munsiff, the petitioner approached this Court. Rule was issued and records were called for. The case had now come up for hearing. I have heard Mr. P. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner. The counsel submits that the order in question passed by the learned Munsiff is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. According to the counsel, if it is a case of contempt, it will be a case of criminal contempt and not civil contempt and in that event, the learned Munsiff had no power to initiate any contempt proceeding itself. The counsel submits that the order in question passed by the learned Munsiff is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. According to the counsel, if it is a case of contempt, it will be a case of criminal contempt and not civil contempt and in that event, the learned Munsiff had no power to initiate any contempt proceeding itself. Under section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 he had only the power to refer the matter to the High Court. On merits, the learned counsel submits that on the face of it there is nothing wrong in the use of the two expressions "excessive" and "arbitrary". By no stretch of imagination, these expressions can be termed as scandalous or intended to malign the Court or in any way to harm the decorum of the Court. These are commonly used expressions in petitions and appeal memos in the law Courts and, according to the learned counsel, the learned Munsiff became too sensitive and acted in undue haste in issuing show cause notice against the defendant and his counsel. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel. I have perused the impugned order of the learned Munsiff. Evidently, the only expressions used about the order awarding cost of Rs.200/- are 'excessive" and "arbitrary". The amount was deposited in compliance to the direction of the Court. The defendant only wanted to keep his option open to approach the higher Court against the quantum of cost as in his opinion it was excessive and arbitrary and it is with that thing in mind that he deposited the cost without prejudice to his right to approach higher Courts, The petition, as is done in usual course, was signed by his counsel. There is nothing wrong in the action of the counsel in doing so. Both the defendant and his counsel were within the bounds of law, decency and decorum and no fault can be found with either of them. I find that the Court was too sensitive and intolerant. If any party aggrieved by the order of a Court feels that the order is arbitrary or any amount awarded by the Court as cost is excessive, it has full liberty to state so and to approach the higher forum. There can be nothing scandalous in it. I find that the Court was too sensitive and intolerant. If any party aggrieved by the order of a Court feels that the order is arbitrary or any amount awarded by the Court as cost is excessive, it has full liberty to state so and to approach the higher forum. There can be nothing scandalous in it. There was absolutely no justification on the part of the Court to be agitated and to initiate proceeding against the counsel and the litigant for the contempt of Court. The Courts must always maintain self-restraint and should not be over sensitive to any and every criticism of orders passed by them. It must be remembered that the power to punish for contempt is not uncontrolled or unlimited. It should be exercised sparingly with considerable circumspection only to uphold the majesty of law and dignity of Court. In view of the foregoing discussion the impugned order dated 2. 8. 85, so far it relates to the issue of show cause notice to the petitioner and his client against initiation of proceedings of contempt of Court is concerned is quashed. In the result, this revision petition is allowed.