Should a litigant lose her defence because her advocate stopped turning up? Not when she kept following up, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held, setting aside ex parte proceedings in a civil suit over a Lawyer’s Negligence and asking the State Bar Council to examine the conduct of the advocate who stopped appearing for her.
Indore: A woman defendant in a civil suit has won back her right to contest it, with the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore setting aside the ex parte proceedings recorded against her by a trial court, and the orders that followed, after finding that she had diligently followed up her case while her counsel failed to appear and kept her uninformed. She has been permitted to file her written statement and contest the suit on merits [Ku. Jyoti Singh v. Chetan Lashkari].
Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt allowed the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution on October 30, 2026, and directed the Registry to send a copy of the petition to the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh within seven days.
“The petitioner should not suffer”
“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.”
Relief was granted as prayed. The ex parte proceedings and the later orders were set aside, and the trial court was directed to give the petitioner a proper opportunity of hearing and pass orders in accordance with law. The Court added the expectation that the petitioner or her advocate would now remain present on every date fixed before the trial court.
Recording that the respondent was not prima facie at fault but had to appear because of the inaction on the petitioner’s side before the trial court, the order also provides for costs of Rs 5,000.
What the plaintiff argued
The respondent-plaintiff, Chetan Lashkari, opposed the petition. He argued that the WhatsApp chats relied on were not supported by a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, and that the petitioner had lodged no complaint with the Bar Council about her lawyer’s conduct.
The High Court rejected both objections. It relied on the Supreme Court’s rulings in Rafiq v. Munshilal (1981) and Malkiat Singh v. Joginder Singh (1998), which hold that a party who entrusts a case to counsel in good faith should not suffer for counsel’s default.
How the ex parte orders came about
The petitioner, Ku. Jyoti Singh, a resident of Chandigarh, is the defendant in Civil Suit No. RCSA/922/2021, Chetan Lashkari v. Ku. Jyoti Singh, pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Indore. She engaged an Indore-based advocate to defend her.
According to the petition, WhatsApp correspondence showed that she repeatedly asked her counsel about the progress of the case but was given incorrect updates. The counsel also gave a “no objection” to a status quo order on the first appearance and eventually stopped appearing. The trial court proceeded ex parte against her on September 23, 2025, followed by orders dated February 16, 2026 and September 1, 2026. She then changed her counsel and approached the High Court.
A matter for the State Bar Council
The Court said its conscience was shocked that advocates were not discharging their duties with integrity and sincerity, and asked that a copy of the order be served on the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh:
“…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.”
The Bar Council, the Court said, may take suo motu action against the advocate who earlier appeared for the petitioner, and is also free to examine whether the advocate for the other side played any role amounting to collusion. It expected the Bar Council to act in accordance with law if it finds seriousness in the conduct of the advocates concerned. No finding of misconduct has yet been returned by the Bar Council.
Why the order matters
The order applies a settled principle from Rafiq v. Munshilal: a litigant who has done everything expected of her by engaging counsel and following up should not lose her day in court because of that counsel’s default. The High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is meant precisely to prevent such a miscarriage of justice in subordinate courts.
The order also goes beyond restoring the defence. By sending the matter to the State Bar Council and inviting it to look at the conduct of advocates on both sides, the Court has treated client neglect as a disciplinary question under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, not merely a procedural lapse, while leaving the actual finding to the statutory disciplinary body.
Case Title: Ku. Jyoti Singh v. Chetan Lashkari [Misc. Petition No. 5926 of 2026; CNR No. MPHC020383312026; 2026:MPHC-IND:30719]
Bench: Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt, Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore
Date of Order: October 30, 2026
For the Petitioner: Advocate Raghvendra Singh Raghuvanshi
For the Respondent: Advocate Govind Rai Purohit