Ku. Jyoti Singh vs Chetan Lashkari

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30719
1 MP-5926-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
th
ON THE 30 OF OCTOBER, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 5926 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC020383312026
KU. JYOTI SINGH
Versus
CHETAN LASHKARI
Appearance:
Shri Raghvendra Singh Raghuvanshi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Govind Rai Purohit - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227
of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs :-
"(a) Call for the record of Civil Suit No. RCSA/922/2021, titled "Chetan
Lashkari Vs. Ku. Jyoti Singh", pending before the Court of the Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Indore (M.P.);

(b) Set aside the impugned orders dated 16.02.2026 and dated 01.09.2026
passed by the trial court and set aside the ex-parte proceedings dated
23.09.2025 recorded against the Petitioner, and permit her to proceed bi parte
in the suit at the same stage as on 23.09.2025 by allowing her to file written
statement etc. and to contest the suit on merits.

(c) Award costs of this petition in favour of the Petitioner; and

(d) Pass such other and further order(s)/relief(s) in favour of petitioner as this
Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case."

Heard counsel for the parties.
02. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner
is residing at Chandigarh (UT) and has engaged an Advocate on an earlier
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHILPA
NAAGDEVE
Signing time: 11/2/2026
5:39:54 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30719
2 MP-5926-2026
occasion namely, Rohit Dubey. Learned counsel by drawing the attention of

this Court towards the WhatsApp chat has stated at the bar that the petitioner
who is residing at Chandigarh and constantly enquiring about the matter with
earlier Advocate who was appearing at Indore. In view of the WhatsApp
chat, the answers are given to the present petitioner by the Advocate
regarding such enquiry and on relying on such answers, petitioner has not
inquired further in the matter and thereafter, in view of ex-parte, the
impugned order is passed for non-appearance of the petitioner or his counsel.
It is further contended that due to the negligence on part of the Advocate ,
litigant should not suffer. In support of this contention, learned counsel has
placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq
and Another Vs. Munshilal and Another reported in AIR 1981 (2) SCC 788 ,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"3. The disturbing feature of the case is that under our present adversary legal
system where the parties generally appear through their advocates, the
obligation of the parties is to select his advocate, brief him, pay the fees
demanded by him and then trust the learned Advocate to do the rest of the
things. The party may be a villager or may belong to a rural area and may have
no knowledge of the court's procedure. After engaging a lawyer, the party may
remain supremely confident that the lawyer will look after his interest. At the
time of the hearing of the appeal, the personal appearance of the party is not
only not required but hardly useful. Therefore, the party having done
everything in his power to effectively participate in the proceedings can rest
assured that he has neither to go to the High Court to inquire as to what is
happening in the High Court with regard to his appeal nor is he to act as a
watchdog of the advocate that the latter appears in the matter when it is listed.
It is no part of his job. Mr A.K. Sanghi stated that a practice has grown up in
the High Court of Allahabad amongst the lawyers that they remain absent
when they do not like a particular Bench. Maybe, we do not know, he is better
informed in this matter. Ignorance in this behalf is our bliss. Even if we do not
put our seal of imprimatur on the alleged practice by dismissing this matter
which may discourage such a tendency, would it not bring justice delivery
system into disrepute. What is the fault of the party who having done
everything in his power expected of him would suffer because of the default of
his advocate. If we reject this appeal, as Mr A.K. Sanghi invited us to do, the
only one who would suffer would not be the lawyer who did not appear but the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHILPA
NAAGDEVE
Signing time: 11/2/2026
5:39:54 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30719
3 MP-5926-2026
party whose interest he represented. The problem that agitates us is whether it
is proper that the party should suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission, or
misdemeanour of his agent. The answer obviously is in the negative. Maybe
that the learned Advocate absented himself deliberately or intentionally. We
have no material for ascertaining that aspect of the matter. We say nothing
more on that aspect of the matter. However, we cannot be a party to an
innocent party suffering injustice merely because his chosen advocate
defaulted. Therefore, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High
Court both dismissing the appeal and refusing to recall that order. We direct
that the appeal be restored to its original number in the High Court and be
disposed of according to law. If there is a stay of dispossession it will continue
till the disposal of the matter by the High Court. There remains the question as
to who shall pay the costs of the respondent here. As we feel that the party is
not responsible because he has done whatever was possible and was in his
power to do, the costs amounting to Rs 200 should be recovered from the
advocate who absented himself. The right to execute that order is reserved with
the party represented by Mr A.K. Sanghi."

03. He has further relied on the judgment passed in the case of Malkiat

Singh and Another Vs. Joginder Singh and Others reported in 1998 (2) SCC
206 which reads as under:-
"3. The appellants went to enquire about the proceedings in the case from their
counsel. On 6-6-1992, on their enquiry, their counsel informed them that he
had pleaded “no instructions” as a result of which they were proceeded ex
parte and the suit had been decreed ex parte on 8-2-1992. The appellants then
engaged another counsel and on 10-6-1992, filed an application under Order 9
Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the order dated 18-11-1991 and the ex parte
judgment and decree dated 8-2-1992. While that application was pending
adjudication, the appeal filed by the appellants against their conviction and
sentence was heard by this Court. On 7-3-1995, the order of conviction and
sentence was set aside.

4. The trial court dismissed the application filed by the appellants under Order
9 Rule 13 CPC on 22-1-1996. Their appeal failed before the learned District
Judge on 18-10-1996. The High Court dismissed the civil revision petition filed
by them in limine on 13-12-1996. Hence this appeal by special leave.

7. The appellants in their application clearly pleaded that they were neither
careless nor negligent and as soon as they learnt about the ex parte decree
dated 8-2-1992 and the order dated 18-11-1991, they filed the application to set
aside the order and ex parte decree. A perusal of the record also reveals that
the appellants were neither careless nor negligent in defending the suit. They
had engaged a counsel and were following the proceedings. In this fact
situation, the trial court, which had admittedly not issued any notice to the
appellants after their counsel had reported no instructions, should have, in the
interest of justice, allowed that application and proceeded in the case from the
stage when the counsel reported no instructions. The appellants cannot, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, be said to be at fault and they should not
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHILPA
NAAGDEVE
Signing time: 11/2/2026
5:39:54 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30719
4 MP-5926-2026
suffer. In taking this view, we are fortified by a judgment of this Court in Tahil
Ram Issardas Sadarangani v. Ramchand Issardas Sadarangani [1993 Supp (3)
SCC 256] wherein the Bench opined:

“4. It is not disputed in the present case that on 15-3-1974 when Mr
Adhia, Advocate withdrew from the case, the petitioners were not
present in court. There is nothing on the record to show as to whether the
petitioners had the notice of the hearing of the case on that day. We are
of the view, when Mr Adhia withdrew from the case, the interests of
justice required, that a fresh notice for actual date of hearing should have
been sent to the parties. In any case in the facts and circumstances of this
case we feel that the party in person was not at fault and as such should
not be made to suffer.”

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that on the
very first date of filing appearance, the concerned Advocate has given no
objection for granting status quo order, which itself speaks about the conduct
of the earlier Advocate and thereafter, when the petitioner came to know
about the impugned order, she has changed the Advocate and thereafter filed
the present petition by challenging the said order. Therefore, learned counsel
prays that the appropriate order may be passed by setting aside the impugned
order and granting further relief in favour of the petitioner.
05. Counsel for the respondents has strongly opposed the submissions
made on behalf of the petitioner by submitting that earlier also one
opportunity had already been granted to the petitioner, however, petitioner
has not availed that opportunity and remained negligent in pursuing the
proceedings. So far as the averments made in the petition about the
WhatsApp chat, whereby the earlier Advocate had not informed the
petitioner about the proceedings in appropriate manner. He has submitted
that there is no other proof on record and even WhatsApp chat is not
supported by the certificate required under Section 65(B) of the Evidence
Act and therefore it is not required to be appreciated.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHILPA
NAAGDEVE
Signing time: 11/2/2026
5:39:54 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30719
5 MP-5926-2026
06. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties

and also perused the material available on record.
07. From the WhatsApp chat, it clearly transpires that the petitioner
was consistently following up the matter with her Advocate. It is an
undisputed fact that the petitioner, being a lady residing at Chandigarh, had
engaged an Advocate at Indore for the proceedings going on at Indore and on
the basis of the information received from the Advocate, she has proceeded
further. Though from the record, it prima facie transpires that the petitioner
has followed up the matter persistently and consistently though it seems that
for the reason best known to the earlier Advocate, he had given wrong
information to the petitioner about the development in the proceedings at the
relevant stage. It also transpires from the earlier order passed in the matter,
whereby the same Advocate had given no objection regarding the order of
status quo, which is normally strange in the facts and circumstances of the
case, more particularly, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case.
Though, it is contended by the respondent that no other proof like any
complaint is filed before the Bar Council by the present petitioner against the
earlier Advocate or any further correspondence with the Advocate is
available on record, therefore, it cannot be said that from the bare reading of
the material available on record and also considering the conduct of the
Advocate in conducting the judicial proceedings on behalf of the present
petitioner, it can be easily heard that petitioner cannot be punished due to the
negligent act or deliberate lacunas, committed by the Advocate in
discharging his duties for conducting the matter in appropriate.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHILPA
NAAGDEVE
Signing time: 11/2/2026
5:39:54 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30719
6 MP-5926-2026
08. I am of the view that the petitioner should not suffer for the

mistake committed by the counsel and therefore, the Court has to exercise
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to prevent the
miscarriage of the justice. Accordingly, the petition is required to be allowed
by granting relief in terms of paragraph 7-B with a further direction to
concerned Court to give the proper opportunity of hearing to the present
petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. It is expected
that now the petitioner will also see that on every date, which is fixed for the
proceedings before the trial Court, the petitioner or his Advocate shall
remain present in the proceedings of the case as per law.
09. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, though
respondent is not prima facie found at fault in the matter for passing such
order but there may be any reason, but the fact remains that the respondent
had to appear before the Court and due to the inaction on the part of the
earlier Advocate/petitioner before the trial Court and the trial Court has
required to pass the impugned order, which is now set aside by this Court.
Therefore, I am of the view that appropriate cost of Rs.5,000/- is required to
be paid by the respondent. However, considering the fact which is emerging
from the record, this Court conscience is also shocked to know that
Advocates who are representing the parties are not discharging with all
integrity and sincerity, which emerges from the record. Let the petitioner
serve copy of this order to State Bar Council of M.P.for taking note of the
facts. Let the Bar Council may take cognizance of such relevant aspects and
if requires can take suo motu action against the concerned Advocate who
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHILPA
NAAGDEVE
Signing time: 11/2/2026
5:39:54 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30719
7 MP-5926-2026
earlier appeared for the petitioner in trial Court. In view of this Court, matter

required to be viewed very seriously as it amounts to professional
misconduct and also in view of the provisions of Section 35 of the
Advocates Act, 1961 and provisions of the Bar Council of India Rules, now
it is high time for the Bar Council to take proper call in such matter and
appropriate action may require to be taken against such erring counsel who
are causing certain prejudice to the rights of the parties who have engaged
the Advocates. It is also open for the Bar Council to find out any role played
by the Advocate for the defendant in the matter which can be considered as
to whether it can be considered is a collusion or not between the parties and
concerned Advocate. It is expected that Bar Council shall proceed with the
matter in appropriate manner, if it is found that there is some seriousness in
the conduct of the respective Advocates, then take appropriate action in
accordance with law with a view to maintain a higher standards of the noble
professionals.
10. Registry is directed to send entire copy of the petition of Bar
Council of M.P. within seven days.
11. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed and disposed off
(SANDEEP N. BHATT)
JUDGE
Shilpa

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHILPA
NAAGDEVE
Signing time: 11/2/2026
5:39:54 PM