Honble JAIN, J. – The petitioner Shri Vinay Kumar , Executive Engineer, P.H.E.D. , Jodhpur has filed this petition under Article 215 o f the Constitution of India read with Sec.151 and Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. seeking expunction of adverse remark made against him in the order dated 21/12/93 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.44/93, State of Rajasthan vs. Indira Devi and others. (2) The above petition arises in the following circumstances. The petitioner was appointed as officer-in -charge to took after the proceedings of civil misc. Appeal No. 44/943. When he was transferred to Sri Ganganagar on 6/1/90, the petitioner received letter dated 9/1/90 from Shri R.L. Jangid, Advocate, addressed to the Legal Remembrancer as the copy was endorsed to him. The petitioner imme- diately, in respect to the above letter, contacted Shri Jangid on 12/1/90 and as per instructions of the Govt. Advocate,Moved an application under sec.5 of the Limitation Act in the above appeal. When the case was heard on 31/7/90, this Court directed the appellant to file an additional affidavit to explain the delay occassioned during the period 19/9/89 to 6 /12/89. Since the file was pending with the Goverment at that time, the officer dealing with the file put the additional affidavit sought by this Court. When the Petitioner case to know of this order, he telegraphically intimated the Legal Remembrancer, Jaipur to file an additional affidavit of the concerned official, the copy of the telegraphic message is Annex.1. The petitioner again on 13/3/91, sent reminder to the Legal Rememberancer, Jaipur for filing the additional affidavit. The copy of the above remainder is annex.2. He did not receive any response from the Legal Rememberancer. The petitioner, therefore, again wrote letter dated 8/4/91 to the Chief Engineer, P.H.E.D., Jaipur and copy there of was also sent to the Dy. Secretary, P.H.E.D. and Law Department, Jaipur. The copy of the letter is annex3. Thereafter, the petitioner issued telegrams on 15/4/91 and 21/5/91. Annexures 4 &5 are the copies of the above telegrams. Ultimately a letter dated 25/5/91 was received on 29/6/91 from the Legal Rememberancer, Jaipur directing the officer-in-charge to take necessary action at his own level. The copy is annex.6. Ultimately, the petitioner himself rushed to Jaipur and filed the additional affidavit on 27/8/91. Annexures 4 &5 are the copies of the above telegrams. Ultimately a letter dated 25/5/91 was received on 29/6/91 from the Legal Rememberancer, Jaipur directing the officer-in-charge to take necessary action at his own level. The copy is annex.6. Ultimately, the petitioner himself rushed to Jaipur and filed the additional affidavit on 27/8/91. Thereafter, the case was adjourned, but, eventually the application filed under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act on behalf of the appellant was allowed and the delay was condoned. This Court, in the order dated 21/12/93 passed the following remarks : `` The aforesaid proceedings of this appeal show the carelessness and negligence on the part of the Office-In-Charge and the Government Advocate in prosecuting the Government litigation.If they would have acted with due care and promptness, the said amount of Rs. 3,21,000/- would not have been recovered by the claimant -respon- dents from the State of Rajasthan prior to the disposal of the stay application. (3) I have heard Shri K.L. Jasmatia. He has submitted that a perusal of the sequence of events would unhasitatingly show that the petitioner has been vigilant and as soon as he came to know about the fact that the Court had desired an additional affidavit in support of the application filed under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act, he made best efforts to seek guidance from the Law Department and wrote letters and sent telegrams regarding this Unfortunately he did not receive any correct instruction and ultimately he filed his own additional affidavit as advised. It is thus clear that the petitioner who was Officer-In Charge in that appeal did not commit any negligence and did his best to Comply with the order of the Court so that the interest of the Govt. could be vouch safed. Learned counsel, in particular, emphasised the fact that the application that was filed under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act on behalf of the appellant was accepted and the delay was condoned. In State of Uttarpradeah vs. Mohd. Naem (1), the Apex Court laid down the following principles for making adverse comments against the Government or its officer :- ``It is not infrequent that sweeping generalisation defeat the very pur- pose for which they are made. In State of Uttarpradeah vs. Mohd. Naem (1), the Apex Court laid down the following principles for making adverse comments against the Government or its officer :- ``It is not infrequent that sweeping generalisation defeat the very pur- pose for which they are made. It has been judicially recognised that in the matter of making disparaging remarks against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before courts of law in cases to be decided by them, it is relevant to consider (a) whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself; (b) whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks. and (c) whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct. (4) Shri Jasmatia, therefore, prayed that the petition be allowed as the future career of the petitioner depends upon the decision of this petition. (5) I have considered the arguments and perused the case law cited by Shri Jasmatia. In the State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Mohd. Naem, (Supra) which was a case for expunction of adverse remarks under Sec. 561-A, Cr.P.C. (1898) the Supreme Court laid down the above principles. After going through the petition and appreciating the sequence of events, it appears that the petitioner in this case was vigilant and took all reasonable steps within his control to expedite the submission of the additional affidavit in support of the application filed under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act on behalf of the appellant. It appears that the petitioner was not clear as to the person whose affidavit was required in support of the above application. For this purpose he wrote letters sent telegrams and requested for guidelines. When he was advised to file his own additional affidavit, he filed the same. Of course, there has been some delay on his part but it was not material and did not adversly affect the interest of the Government inasmuch as the application under Sec.5 of the Limi- tation Act was allowed in favour of the appellant. In this connection, I specifically refer to condition (c) of State of Utter Pradesh vs. Mohd. Of course, there has been some delay on his part but it was not material and did not adversly affect the interest of the Government inasmuch as the application under Sec.5 of the Limi- tation Act was allowed in favour of the appellant. In this connection, I specifically refer to condition (c) of State of Utter Pradesh vs. Mohd. Naems case and hold that the above rem arks were not necessary to be made after the application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act was allowed by the Court. The above remarks were perhaps made by takaing into account the fact that the submission of the additional affidavit was inordinately delayed. The Law Department is also responsible for not attending to the letters and requests made by the petitioner. For the above reasons, I dispose to hold that the petition deserves to be allowed. (6) I, therefore, accept the petition and expunge the words`` Officer-in-Charge and Instead of the word ``they ``he shall be read. The remarks will remain against the Govt. Adoocate only in the order dated 21/12/93 in civil misc. appeal no 44/93.