The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside ex parte proceedings against a Chandigarh-based woman in a civil dispute, holding that a litigant should not be made to suffer because of an advocate’s negligence or failure to properly discharge professional duties.
Justice Sandeep N Bhatt, in an order dated October 30, expressed concern over the conduct of the woman’s former lawyer, who allegedly misrepresented developments in the case despite receiving regular enquiries from his client.
The Court observed that the advocate’s conduct raised serious concerns about professional misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, and the Bar Council of India Rules. It also emphasised the need for the Bar Council to consider appropriate action against lawyers whose conduct prejudices their clients’ rights.
WhatsApp Messages Established Regular Follow-Up
The petitioner, a resident of Chandigarh, had engaged an advocate in Indore to represent her in a civil suit. Although she remained in contact with him through WhatsApp messages, she was allegedly provided inaccurate information about the progress of the proceedings.
Meanwhile, the trial court initiated ex parte proceedings against her on September 23, 2025, following non-appearance. It subsequently passed orders on February 16 and September 1, 2026.
After discovering the actual status of the litigation, the woman changed her advocate and approached the High Court to challenge the trial court’s orders.
Represented by advocate Raghvendra Singh Raghuvanshi, she submitted that she had consistently sought updates from her previous counsel but was misled into believing that the case was proceeding normally.
Her counsel relied on Supreme Court decisions in Rafiq v Munshilal and Malkiat Singh v Joginder Singh to argue that a party should not face adverse consequences because of an advocate’s negligence, inaction or misconduct.
Court Questions Advocate’s Conduct
After examining the WhatsApp conversations, the High Court found that the petitioner had been regularly monitoring her case and seeking information from her lawyer. Despite this, the advocate had communicated incorrect details about developments before the trial court.
The Court also questioned the lawyer’s decision to express no objection to a status quo order on the very first date of appearance.
Justice Bhatt considered that conduct unusual in the circumstances and noted that it raised doubts about the manner in which the advocate had handled the litigation.
The judge expressed shock that advocates entrusted with representing litigants were not always performing their responsibilities with the required integrity and sincerity.
The Court observed that a party who had engaged professional legal representation could not be punished for negligent acts or deliberate omissions committed by the advocate while conducting the case.
High Court Calls for Bar Council Action
Addressing the broader issue of professional accountability, the High Court said the conduct revealed in the proceedings was serious enough to warrant consideration under the disciplinary framework governing advocates.
It observed that the Bar Council should take an appropriate decision in such cases and consider action against lawyers whose conduct causes prejudice to the rights of those they represent.
The Court particularly considered the petitioner’s circumstances, noting that she lived far from the place where the civil proceedings were pending and had relied on her advocate to protect her interests.
Finding that the record supported her claim of having diligently followed up on the litigation, the High Court concluded that she should not suffer because of her former counsel’s conduct.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the ex parte proceedings initiated against the petitioner.
