MP HC Lets Chandigarh Woman Contest Suit After She Repeatedly Checked With Indore Lawyer Who Gave Wrong Updates

The petitioner challenged orders dated 16.02.2026 and 01.09.2026, and ex-parte proceedings recorded on 23.09.2025, in a civil suit pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Indore.

She contended that, while residing in Chandigarh, she had engaged an Indore advocate and regularly followed up with him by WhatsApp; relying on his responses, she believed the matter was being attended to.

The respondent opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner had already received an opportunity, had remained negligent, and that the WhatsApp material lacked a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.

Article 227 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to exercise supervisory jurisdiction to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

In Rafiq v. Munshilal, AIR 1981 SC 1400, the Supreme Court held that an innocent litigant who has done what is reasonably expected should not suffer solely because of an advocate’s default.

In Malkiat Singh v. Joginder Singh, (1998) 2 SCC 206, the Court held that where litigants were not at fault and had engaged counsel and followed the proceedings, the matter should, in the interests of justice, proceed from the stage at which counsel ceased to act.

The Court also referred to Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules in directing that the advocate’s conduct be brought to the State Bar Council’s attention.

The Court found that the WhatsApp exchanges indicated that the petitioner had consistently enquired about the case and had relied on information supplied by her advocate.

It also noted the advocate’s earlier no-objection to a status quo order, which it considered unusual in the circumstances.

Although the respondent disputed the evidentiary sufficiency of the WhatsApp material and pointed to the absence of a Bar Council complaint or further correspondence, the Court concluded that the petitioner should not be punished for her advocate’s alleged negligence or failure to conduct the matter properly.

It therefore considered intervention under Article 227 necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

The impugned orders and ex-parte proceedings were set aside, and the trial court was directed to provide the petitioner a proper opportunity of hearing and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

The Court directed that the petitioner pay costs of ₹5,000 to the respondent and expected her or her advocate to remain present on future hearing dates.

It further directed the petitioner to serve a copy of the order on the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh and directed the Registry to send the petition record to the Bar Council for consideration of appropriate action, including any inquiry into the advocates’ conduct.