ORDER R.R. Prasad, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that in a Title (Matrimonial) Suit No. 132 of 2009 brought by the husband Bikash Bhagat, an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed on behalf of the wife-Respondent on 15.2.2010. On filing such application, the husband sought time for filing rejoinder. On such prayer, the case was fixed for 20.2.2010, on which date a time petition was again filed on behalf of the husband for filing rejoinder. At that point of time, Respondent-wife was not present. Hence, the case was fixed for 11.3.2010 for filing written statement/ hearing as well as for filing rejoinder to the petition filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Subsequently, Respondent did appear and pressed the Court to hear the application by taking plea that as she has to come from Patna and to return back for which she has to bear expenses considerably and that she does not have money to maintain herself and being persuaded by the submission, the Court did think it proper to hear the application only for the interim purposes and not for disposal of the said application finally and accordingly, the words 'filing of rejoinder' recorded on that day le. on 22.2.2010 was penned through and the matter was heard and an order was passed on 23.2.2010 whereby the husband was directed to pay Rs. 400/- to the wife on the date when she would be required to attend the Court and also awarded Rs. 4000/- as litigation cost. That order was challenged before this Court, vide W.P.(C) No. 1268 of 2010 wherein the Court after taking note of the fact that at the first instance, the case was adjourned on 20.2.2010 for 11.3.2010 for filing rejoinder, still the Court heard the matter on 20.2.2010 and fixed the matter for orders on 23.2.2010 on which date order was passed and therefore, it was recorded "it is shocking as to how an officer of the District Judge has passed such type of order". Since such remark may be taken as lack of knowledge of procedure on the part of the Petitioner this application has been filed for expunction of the remark as if such remark would be allowed to remain on the record, it will have adverse effect on the career of the officer. 3. It was submitted by Mr. V. Shivnath, learned senior counsel that the Petitioner by hearing the application in absence of the Petitioner-husband had never intended to dispose of the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act on its merit, rather the order was passed keeping in view that the wife-Respondent had to appear in this case at Ranchi by coming down from Patna and thereby she had to spend money for coming and going and as such, upon hearing an order was passed which was only interim in nature. 4. Learned Counsel further submits that such observation as recorded under order dated 25.5.2010 was made without hearing the Petitioner and as such, Petitioner could not place his case. Had the Petitioner been heard, he would have placed his case and could have explained the circumstances under which that order was passed and possibly such remark may not have been recorded against the Petitioner and therefore, the remark passed by this Court under order dated 25.5.2010 be expunged. 5. I do find sufficient force in the submission advanced on behalf of the Petitioner. Admittedly, without hearing the Petitioner, such remark was passed whereas there appears to be some justification in hearing the matter on 20.2.2010 itself, in spite of the fact that on the same day but on earlier point of time the case had been adjourned to 11.3.2010 but as has been contended, the Petitioner might have been persuaded with the submission advanced on behalf of the Respondent-wife to hear the application and to pass some kind of order and thereby the order was passed which was interim in nature. Accordingly, the observation as recorded in the order dated 25.5.2010 may not be taken to be as lack of knowledge of procedure on the part of the Petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Review Application No. 65 of 2010 is disposed of.