The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside ex-parte proceedings against a woman in a civil suit, observing that a litigant should not suffer because of negligence or lapses on the part of an advocate. The Court found that the woman had consistently followed up with her lawyer but appeared to have received incorrect information about the progress of her case.
Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt, while allowing her petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, restored her opportunity to participate in the proceedings and directed the trial court to provide her a proper hearing.
Background
The case arose from a civil suit pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Indore. The petitioner, who was residing in Chandigarh, had engaged an advocate in Indore to represent her in the proceedings.
She approached the High Court challenging the trial court's orders dated February 16, 2026, and September 1, 2026, along with the ex-parte proceedings recorded against her on September 23, 2025.
Her counsel submitted WhatsApp conversations to demonstrate that she had regularly contacted her previous advocate to enquire about the case. Relying on the information provided by him, she believed that the proceedings were being handled appropriately.
The petitioner argued that she should not be made to suffer because of her advocate's negligence and relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in Rafiq v. Munshilal and Malkiat Singh v. Joginder Singh.
Opposing the petition, the respondent argued that the petitioner had already received an opportunity to participate in the proceedings but had failed to utilise it.
It was also contended that the WhatsApp conversations could not be relied upon because they were not accompanied by the certificate required under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
After examining the WhatsApp conversations and the available records, Justice Bhatt found that the petitioner had consistently followed up with her advocate despite residing in another city.
The Court observed that the information supplied by the previous advocate appeared to have misled the petitioner regarding developments in the case.
The Bench remarked:
"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 Court further expressed concern over the conduct of advocates who fail to discharge their professional responsibilities sincerely, resulting in prejudice to the rights of litigants.
Allowing the petition, the Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside the impugned orders and granted the petitioner an opportunity to participate in the civil proceedings. The trial court was directed to provide her a proper opportunity of hearing and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.
The Court also directed the petitioner to ensure that she or her advocate remains present on every date fixed by the trial court.
Additionally, the Court directed that a copy of the order be served on the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh so that it could examine the conduct of the previous advocate and consider appropriate action, including suo motu proceedings, if warranted.
The respondent was directed to pay costs of ₹5,000. The Registry was also directed to send a complete copy of the petition to the Bar Council within seven days.
Case Details
Case Title: Ku. Jyoti Singh v. Chetan Lashkari
Case Number: Misc. Petition No. 5926 of 2026
Judge: Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt
Decision Date: October 30, 2026
