Based on the provided legal document, the key points regarding the case are as follows:

1. The Impugned Judgment was issued independently of any formal application and did not arise from the main disputes in the underlying suits. It was authored to address issues related to a viral video clip and the conduct of counsel during court proceedings (!) (!) .

2. The judgment was primarily aimed at clarifying the events surrounding the dissemination of the Video Clip, which was considered to scandalize the Court and undermine its authority. The judgment emphasized the importance of judicial independence and the public interest in maintaining the integrity of the judicial process (!) (!) .

3. The court found that the Impugned Judgment lacked the essential characteristics of a formal judgment or decision, as it did not contain reasoning or ratio decidendi and was mainly obiter dicta. Consequently, it did not meet the criteria of a "decision" under the relevant statutory definition, and its legal status was deemed not to be that of a binding judgment (!) (!) .

4. The Impugned Judgment was not issued as part of the main suits and did not dispose of any rights or interests in those suits. It was not made in the course of a trial or hearing that finally disposed of the parties' rights, and therefore, it was considered not to be appealable as a "decision" under the applicable law (!) (!) .

5. The Court of Appeal recognized that the applications filed by the appellant, which sought to intervene and to expunge parts of the judgment, were properly initiated under the procedural rules and were validly brought before the court. These applications are considered orders rather than rulings, and they are therefore appealable (!) (!) .

6. The court held that the applications to intervene and to expunge the judgment could have been considered under the court's inherent jurisdiction, as the specific procedural rules relied upon were not applicable in this context. The failure to invoke the inherent jurisdiction was deemed a procedural error (!) (!) .

7. The court found that the High Court erred in applying the specific intervention rule and should have exercised its inherent jurisdiction to permit the appellant's intervention, especially given the nature of the statements made against him in the Impugned Judgment (!) (!) .

8. The statements regarding the appellant in the Impugned Judgment were deemed to be prejudicial and not justified by the circumstances. The court recognized that such remarks could adversely affect the appellant's reputation, and therefore, they should be expunged to prevent injustice (!) (!) .

9. The court identified a real danger of bias on the part of the presiding judge, primarily due to extrajudicial comments and expressions of bias during proceedings, which compromised the judge's impartiality. This raised concerns about the fairness of the proceedings and warranted recusal (!) (!) .

10. The appealability of the applications was affirmed on the basis that they did not arise from any final or substantive ruling in the main suits but were orders that could be reviewed independently. The court emphasized that the procedural framework supports the appeal of such orders, especially when they are not made in the course of a trial that disposes of the parties' rights (!) (!) .

In summary, the court's decision focused on the improper issuance of the Impugned Judgment outside the formal judicial process, the procedural correctness of the applications filed, the court's jurisdiction to expunge offensive remarks, and the necessity to maintain judicial impartiality and integrity.