MP High Court sets aside ex parte order after lawyer fails to appear, inform client of hearings

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently held that litigants cannot be made to suffer for the negligence of their advocates, while setting aside an ex-parte order passed by a trial court against a woman who was allegedly kept in the dark by her lawyer about the progress of a civil suit [Ku. Jyoti Singh vs Chetan Lashkari].

Expressing shock over advocates failing to discharge duties with sincerity, the Court's also directed the State Bar Council to examine and initiate possible suo motu disciplinary action against the lawyer whose negligence and misleading updates led to his client being proceeded against ex parte.

Justice Sandeep N Bhatt passed the order on a plea filed by the litigant (petitioner) to set aside an ex parte order passed by a trial court against her that had closed her right to contest a civil suit.

The petitioner referred to WhatsApp chats indicating that she had diligently followed up on the progress of her case with her counsel.

However, after the lawyer failed to appear before the trial court, the petitioner's right to contest the civil suit was closed through the ex-parte order (order passed in the absence of a party or their counsel).

The Court on October 30 set aside the ex parte trial court order and restored the petitioner's right to contest the civil suit. It held that an innocent party who acts diligently cannot be made to suffer for the inaction or omissions of their counsel.

"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," the Bench observed.

The petitioner was a Chandigarh resident who was the defendant in a civil suit pending before the Civil Judge in Indore. She engaged an Indore-based advocate, Rohit Dubey, to represent her.

WhatsApp correspondence placed on record showed she had persistently followed up on her case. However, the counsel repeatedly supplied incorrect updates, gave a "no-objection" to a status quo order on the very first appearance without apparent justification, and ultimately stopped appearing.

This prompted the trial court to pass an ex parte order on September 23, 2025, followed by adverse orders in February and September 2026.

Following these developments, the petitioner changed her counsel and later filed a plea before the High Court to set aside the orders passed against her.

The respondent (plaintiff in the civil suit) opposed the plea, arguing that the WhatsApp chats produced by the petitioner to claim that she was misled by her lawyer were not backed by an electronic certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. It was also argued that no formal Bar Council complaint had been lodged by the petitioner with her claim that she was misled by her lawyer.

Rejecting these objections, the High Court relied on Supreme Court rulings in Rafiq v. Munshilal (1981) and Malkiat Singh v. Joginder Singh (1998), which establish that litigants entrust their matters in good faith and cannot be punished for their counsel's lapses.

The Court further found that the petitioner's earlier counsel's conduct appeared to reflect professional misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The Court, therefore, referred the matter to the State Bar Council.

"Advocates who are representing the parties are not discharging with all integrity and sincerity, which emerges from the record... 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," the Court said.

The High Court directed the Registry to forward the petition to the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh within seven days to examine if disciplinary action should be initiated in the matter.

The trial court was directed to afford the petitioner a fresh opportunity to file her written statement and contest the suit on merits.

Advocate Raghvendra Singh Raghuvanshi appeared for the petitioner.

Advocate Govind Rai Purohit appeared for the respondent.

[Read Order]