S. A. HAKEEM, J. ( 1 ) APPLICATION seeking reference said to have been made by the claimants, which bears the date 18-4-1968, was not made on the said date, but was made some time after 1-11-1973 or around the time when the reference was made to the court on 5-4-1982 and, therefore, it was barred by lime and hence the reference was incompeient. 3. On the inlrinsic evidence in the application presented by the claimants themselves, it was found to be ante dated. It is pointed out that the name of the new "slate of karnataka" came to be incorporated on the adhesive court-fee stamps only with effect from 1-11-1973 in pursuance of the Provisions of the Mysore slate (alteration of name) Act, 1973 (Central Act 31 of 1973 ). Before that date, the name of the stale was printed as "mysore" on all the court-fee stamps. Hence, the circumstance that the adhesive stamp with the printed name of the state "karnataka" alone was sufficient to conclude that the applicalion was presented sometime after 1-11-1973 and not on 18-4-1968. As such, the claim which was hopelessly barred by time was sought to be passed of as one filed in time. It is further stated that a specific objection regarding the bar of limitation was also taken before the reference court. But the same was brushed aside by the court stating that the relevant records were not produced. In these circumstances, the court has made the remarks personally against the applicant which are now sought to be expunged. 4. The law on the point appears to be well-settled. In r. k. lakshmanan v a. k. srinivasan, AIR 1975 SC 1741 , the Supreme Court has reiterated the principle thus : "the tests to be applied in considering the expunction of disparaging remarks against persons or authorities whose conduct comes in for consideration before courts of law in cases to be decided by them, were neatly summed up by this court, speaking through s. k. das, j. In state of U. P. v muhammad nain, (1964)2 scr 363 at p. 374: [ air 1964 SC 703 at p. 707 :1964 (1) cri. Lj. Lj. 549 at p. 554] thus: " (i) whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself; (ii) whether there is evidence on record bearing on thai conduct justifying the remarks; and (iii) whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct. It has also been recognised that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature, and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve. " 5. Having regard to the said principle, it appears to be proper and expedient to expunge the following remarks : "9. We are also shocked and surprised about the casual manner in which the question of limitation has been disposed of by the then learned civil judge Sri m. t, gudajannavar. . . . . . . the very fact that reference was received after 14 years from the date of the award, should have made the learned judge to examine the question with due care and caution. He failed to do so. He winked at it. The facts and circumstances of this case are such as would undermine the faith of the public in the courts and they have shaken our confidence in the officer. 15. We also direct that a copy of the judgment be kept along with confidential records of Sri m. t. gudajannavar, the then civil judge of chikodi. " 6. Accordingly, the afore said observations/remarks in the judgment dated 19-3-1991 are hereby expunged. The application is allowed accordingly. --- *** --- .