MP High Court Asks Bar Council To Consider Action Against Defendant's Advocate For 'Collusion' After His 'No Objection' To Status Quo Order
The Madhya Pradesh High Court was considering a matter whereby the petitioner sought setting aside of the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court.
Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt, Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench)
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the State Bar Council to consider taking action against an Advocate for professional misconduct in giving wrong information to the litigant about the development in the proceedings at the relevant stage and the possibility of collusion after he gave his "no objection" to the passing of a status quo order while appearing for the Defendant in a Suit.
The High Court was considering a matter whereby the petitioner sought setting aside of the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court, the ex-parte proceedings recorded against the Petitioner.
The Single Bench of Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt ordered, "It is also open for the Bar Council to find out any role played by the Advocate for the defendant in the matter which can be considered as to whether it can be considered is a collusion or not between the parties and concerned Advocate".
The Court also ordered, “...considering the fact which is emerging from the record, this Court conscience is also shocked to know that Advocates who are representing the parties are not discharging with all integrity and sincerity, which emerges from the record. Let the petitioner serve copy of this order to State Bar Council of M.P.for taking note of the facts. Let the Bar Council may take cognizance of such relevant aspects and if requires can take suo motu action against the concerned Advocate who earlier appeared for the petitioner in trial Court. In view of this Court, matter required to be viewed very seriously as 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.”
Advocate Raghvendra Singh Raghuvanshi represented the Petitioner while Advocate Govind Rai Purohit represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The petitioner residing at Chandigarh (UT) claimed that she had engaged an Advocate on an earlier occasion, namely, Rohit Dubey. It was her case that she was constantly enquiring about the matter with the earlier Advocate who was appearing at Indore. In view of the WhatsApp chat, the answers were given to the present petitioner by the Advocate regarding such enquiry and, on relying on such answers, the petitioner had not inquired further in the matter and thereafter, in view of ex-parte, the impugned order was passed for non-appearance of the petitioner or the counsel. The petitioner claimed that there was negligence on the part of the Advocate. The petitioner contended that on the very first date of filing appearance, the Advocate gave "no objection" for passing a status quo order.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the WhatsApp chat, the Bench noted that the petitioner was consistently following up the matter with her Advocate. It was also an undisputed fact that the petitioner, being a lady residing at Chandigarh, had engaged an Advocate at Indore for the proceedings going on at Indore and on the basis of the information received from the Advocate, she had proceeded further.
“Though from the record, it prima facie transpires that the petitioner has followed up the matter persistently and consistently though it seems that for the reason best known to the earlier Advocate, he had given wrong information to the petitioner about the development in the proceedings at the relevant stage. It also transpires from the earlier order passed in the matter, whereby the same Advocate had given no objection regarding the order of status quo, which is normally strange in the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case”, it noted.
The Bench was of the view that the petitioner cannot be punished due to the negligent act or deliberate lacunas committed by the Advocate in discharging his duties for conducting the matter appropriately.
The Bench thus allowed the petition with a direction to the concerned Court to give the proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. “It is expected that now the petitioner will also see that on every date, which is fixed for the proceedings before the trial Court, the petitioner or his Advocate shall remain present in the proceedings of the case as per law”, the Bench stated while also directing, “Therefore, I am of the view that appropriate cost of Rs.5,000/- is required to be paid by the respondent.”
Cause Title: Ku. Jyoti Singh v. Chetan Lashkari (Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-IND:30719)