Y. R. MEENA, D. A. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS Civil Application for leave to appeal has been filed after the Letters patent Appeal was filed. However, this Civil application seeking leave to appeal as well as the Letters Patent Appeal and the Civil application for stay filed therein have been heard together. Whether intra-court appeal is maintainable or not is required to be decided before granting leave. ( 2 ) THE basic controversy in this application for leave to appeal is whether intra-court appeal is maintainable and whether the remarks made by the learned single Judge in the order dated 07. 04. 2006 on a Criminal Miscellaneous Application can be expunged. Before we go into that question, we would like to see whether we have the jurisdiction to entertain an intra-court appeal against the order which has been passed on an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short cr. P. C. ). ( 3 ) SHRI P. M. Thakkar, learned senior Counsel for the applicant, submits that this Court can expunge the remarks passed in the order made in exercise of powers under criminal jurisdiction. He has drawn our attention to Clauses 15 and 25 of the Letters Patent appended to the Gujarat high Court Rules, 1993 (for short the High court Rules ). Mr. Thakkar submits that in clause 15 words used are "in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction of one Judge" and restricted to the criminal jurisdiction referred under Clauses 22 to 29, especially in relation to Clause 25 under the heading "criminal jurisdiction". If the case in hand does not relate to the matter under Clause 25 of the letters Patent, then, intra-court appeal is maintainable. The impugned order neither comes under Clause 15 nor under Clause 25 of the Letters Patent, therefore, intra-court appeal is maintainable. ( 4 ) HE further submits that he has not challenged the judgment, but he has challenged only some remarks passed against the advocate in the impugned order. Therefore, even if the judgment is on a petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. , the appeal challenging the remarks in the impugned order is maintainable. ( 5 ) HE has also drawn our attention to various decisions, i. e. , EMPLOYER IN relation TO MANAGEMENT OF central MINE PLANNING AND DESIGN institute LTD. Therefore, even if the judgment is on a petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. , the appeal challenging the remarks in the impugned order is maintainable. ( 5 ) HE has also drawn our attention to various decisions, i. e. , EMPLOYER IN relation TO MANAGEMENT OF central MINE PLANNING AND DESIGN institute LTD. V/s. UNION OF INDIA and ANOTHER ( AIR 2001 SC 883 ), THE state OF UTTAR PRADESH V/s. MOHAMMAD NAIM ( AIR 1964 SC 703 ) AND decision OF THIS COURT IN MOHMED usuf DAUDBHAI V/s. MOHMADBHAI karimbhai MANSUR (1997 (2) G. L. H. (U. J.) 29 ). Before we go into the provisions, we would like to refer to the observations of Their Lordships in the aforesaid cases. ( 6 ) IN Management of Central Mine planning and Design Institute Ltd. (supra) the issue before Their Lordships is whether intra-court appeal is maintainable under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of Patna high Court in case of interlocutory orders. Referring to the first limb of clause 10 of the Letters Patent of Patna, Their Lordships observed that certain categories of judgments are not appealable. Their Lordships, thereafter, in paragraph no. 13 have divided the judgments in three categories. One is a final judgment, second is a preliminary judgment, i. e. , dismissed in default, etc. and the third category is intermediary or interlocutory judgment. Their Lordships in paragraph no. 14 observed that if the order is in the nature of final judgment, intra-court appeal is maintainable, however, that depends on the facts of each case. Their lordships held that whether appeal is maintainable against an interlocutory order depends upon the facts of each case, i. e. if the interlocutory order decides the rights of parties finally, in that case appeal is maintainable against the interlocutory order. ( 7 ) IN Mohammad Naim (supra) in paragraph no. 10 Their Lordships were of the view that if the remarks passed by the High court or Subordinate Court are in a criminal case, they can be expunged by the High court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. The relevant part of paragraph no. 9 reads as under:-"9. . . . . . . 10 Their Lordships were of the view that if the remarks passed by the High court or Subordinate Court are in a criminal case, they can be expunged by the High court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. The relevant part of paragraph no. 9 reads as under:-"9. . . . . . . We think that the view taken in the High Courts other than the High Court of Bombay is correct and the High Court can in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction expunge remarks made by it or by a lower court if it be necessary to do so to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice; the jurisdiction is however of an exceptional nature and has to be exercised in exceptional cases only. In fairness to learned counsel for the appellant we may state there that he has submitted before us that the State Government, will be satisfied if we either expunge the remarks or hold them to be wholly unwarranted on the facts of the case. . . . . . " ( 8 ) IN Mohmed Usuf Daudbhai (supra), this Court has considered the aspect that when the matter was dismissed in default, and thereafter when appeal was filed before the Division Bench, whether appeal is maintainable. The Court was of the view that where an application under Order IX, rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure is dismissed by a single Judge of a High Court in default, such order is "judgment" and an appeal would lie against such order. ( 9 ) THE facts before us in this appeal are that a complaint has been filed. A petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. has been filed in this Court for quashing that complaint. Though the order has been passed quashing the complaint, but certain observations have been made. The controversy now remains is that if an intra-court appeal itself is not maintainable, in case of order passed on an application under section 482 of the Cr. P. C. , can an appeal against that order for expunging the remarks can be entertained. ( 10 ) MR. The controversy now remains is that if an intra-court appeal itself is not maintainable, in case of order passed on an application under section 482 of the Cr. P. C. , can an appeal against that order for expunging the remarks can be entertained. ( 10 ) MR. Thakkar submits that the words "in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction of one Judge of the said High Court" used in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent are restricted to cases referred to in Clauses 22 to 29, especially cases referred to in Clause 25 only, under the heading "criminal jurisdiction", and the impugned order does not come within the provisions of Clauses 22 to 29 or Clause 25 of the Letters Patent, therefore, appeal is maintainable. The relevant Clause 15 of the Letters Patent reads as under:"15. And we do further ordain that an appeal shall lie to the said High Court of judicature at Bombay from the judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the said High Court, and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, and not being a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise of the power of superintendence under the provisions of section 107 of the government of India Act, or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction) of one Judge of the said High Court, pursuant to section 108 of the Government of India Act, and that notwithstanding anything hereinbefore provided an appeal shall lie to the said High court from a judgment of one Judge of the said High Court or one Judge of any Division court, pursuant to section 108 of the government of India Act made on or after the first day of February one thousand nine hundred and twenty-nine in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the High Court, where the judge who passed the judgment declares that the case is a fit one for appeal; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of judges of the said High Court or of such division Court shall be to Us. Our heirs successors in our or Their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided. " ( 11 ) IN the operative part of Clause 15, the provision provides from the judgment not being a judgment passed in exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "or in exercise of criminal jurisdiction of one Judge of the high Court", meaning thereby that if the order is passed by a Single Judge of the High court in exercise of criminal jurisdiction of one Judge of the said High Court, intra-court appeal is not maintainable. Mr. Thakkar submits that though the words used are "criminal jurisdiction of one judge of the high Court" in Clause 15, they are restricted to cases related only to Clauses 22 to 29 of the Letters Patent where the heading is given "criminal Jurisdiction". It is true that clauses 22 to 29 are given under the heading "criminal Jurisdiction" of the Letters Patent. However, if we read carefully Clause 15, the words used are "in exercise of criminal jurisdiction of one Judge of the High Court", but in Clauses 22 to 20 under the heading "criminal Jurisdiction" of the Letters Patent, the words used are "original criminal jurisdiction". Therefore, though one Judge exercises powers under original criminal jurisdiction, appeal is not maintainable, but in cases where the Single Judge in exercise of criminal jurisdiction passed any order that is also not appealable. Therefore, we do not agree with the learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Thakkar, that the words "criminal jurisdiction" used in Clause 15 are restricted to Clause 25 of the Letters Patent only. ( 12 ) NOW, we will come back to the observations of Their Lordships in the cases referred above. In the cases referred above, nowhere it is held that if the order has been passed on a petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. , the intra-court appeal is maintainable. ( 13 ) IN the case of Management of central Mine Planning and Design Institute ltd (supra), the issue before Their Lordships is that whether intra-court appeal is maintainable against interlocutory order. That is not the case before us in hand, therefore, of no help to the applicant. P. C. , the intra-court appeal is maintainable. ( 13 ) IN the case of Management of central Mine Planning and Design Institute ltd (supra), the issue before Their Lordships is that whether intra-court appeal is maintainable against interlocutory order. That is not the case before us in hand, therefore, of no help to the applicant. ( 14 ) IN Mohmed Usuf Daudbhai (supra), though Their Lordships held that high Court has the power to expunge the remarks passed by the subordinate judiciary or by the High Court, but there was no issue before Their Lordships that intra-court appeal is maintainable against the order of single Judge passed on a petition under section 482 of the Cr. P. C. Therefore, the observations in this case also are of no help to the applicant for grant of leave to appeal. ( 15 ) THE third case referred of this court relates to the maintainability of appeal in cases of revision or dismissed for default. This case also does not in any way take the case of the appellant any further. ( 16 ) NOW, we turn to sub-rule (10)under the heading criminal of Rule 2 of the High Court Rules. Sub-rule (10) of Rule 2 reads as under:-"2. Matters to be disposed of by a single Judge.- Save as otherwise expressly provided by any law in force or by these rules, a Single Judge may dispose of the following matters: i. Civil (1) to (25) xx xx xx ii. Criminal (1) to (9) xx xx xx (10) Applications under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. (11) to (17) xx xx xx"sub-rule (10) of Rule 2 has been given under the heading criminal and that relates to the application under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. , meaning thereby any petition under Section 482 shall be disposed of by single Judge of the High Court and this sub-rule (10) is under the heading criminal , that is a criminal matter. Therefore, in our considered opinion when in Clause 15 of the letters Patent, there is a reference to cases to be decided in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction of one Judge of the said High court , the petition under Section 482 of the cr. P. C. is a petition which can be disposed of "in exercise of criminal jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge of High Court". P. C. is a petition which can be disposed of "in exercise of criminal jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge of High Court". Therefore, intra-court appeal is not maintainable against the order passed on a petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. ( 17 ) MR. Thakkar next submits that he has not challenged in appeal the judgment of learned Single Judge whereby the complaint has been quashed, but he challenges the remarks passed against the advocate in that impugned order, which is civil in nature, therefore, they can be challenged by way of filing an intra-court appeal. Now the next question thus arises for our consideration is that when the intra-court appeal is not maintainable against the order passed on a petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. , can there be appeal for expunging the remarks passed in that order. ( 18 ) THE order/judgment contains facts, issues, judgment, reasons for judgment, remarks and observations. Can it be said that against the direction or any part of the order or conclusion appeal is maintainable, while appeal is not maintainable against the judgment/order. We are unable to accept the proposition of Mr. Thakkar to this effect that appeal is maintainable against the remarks. When there is a provision for appeal or revision against an order, appeal against that order or judgment is maintainable against a composite order as a whole, which includes the facts, conclusion, direction, reasons, observations, remarks. The appellant may challenge any part of that order, i. e. , the conclusion, any reason, observation or remarks, but before that it should be seen whether the composite order as a whole is appealable or not. In this case, the composite order is the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge on a petition under section 482 of the Cr. P. C. Therefore, when appeal is not maintainable on a composite order as a whole, no part of that can be appealed against, particularly when appeal against the composite order as a whole is not permitted. No part of that order can be challenged. There is no provision that when the judgment or appeal is not maintainable against any order under the provisions of the Act, even then, appeal can be filed against part of the order. No part of that order can be challenged. There is no provision that when the judgment or appeal is not maintainable against any order under the provisions of the Act, even then, appeal can be filed against part of the order. ( 19 ) IN the case in hand, learned counsel submits that they want to file appeal only against the remarks passed against the advocate. As stated above, challenge to any part of the judgment/order and provision for appeal against the order are two separate things. If the order is appealable, any part of that can be challenged, but when order is not appealable, there is no question of entertaining the appeal against any part of that order, which has been passed under section 482 of the Cr. P. C. ( 20 ) AS the appeal against the impugned order, which has been passed under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. , is not maintainable, we see no justification to grant leave to appeal on the application moved by the applicant in the case in hand. Application for leave to appeal stands rejected. Consequently, the Letters Patent appeal and the Civil Application for stay also stand dismissed.