MP High Court Asks Bar Council To Consider Action Against Advocate Over Alleged Failure To Inform Client About Court Proceedings

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the State Bar Council to examine the allegations of professional misconduct against an advocate who was engaged by a Chandigarh-based litigant to represent her in a case before the Indore Bench but allegedly failed to keep her informed about developments in the proceedings, resulting in the trial court proceeding ex parte against her. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 451]

Setting aside the ex parte order, the bench of Justice Sandeep N Bhatt directed;

"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. 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. It is expected that Bar Council shall proceed with the matter in appropriate manner, if it is found that there is some seriousness in the conduct of the respective Advocates, then take appropriate action in accordance with law with a view to maintain a higher standards of the noble professionals". 

A petition was filed seeking to set aside the impugned orders of February 2, 2026, and September 1, 2026, passed by the trial court, and to set aside the ex parte proceedings of September 25, 2025. 

The counsel for the petitioner informed the court that the petitioner resides in Chandigarh and had engaged an advocate, Rohit Dubey. The counsel informed the court that the petitioner used to routinely enquire about the matter with Dubey on WhatsApp. However, ex parte proceedings were passed for the non-appearance of the petitioner or his counsel. 

The counsel for the petitioner argued that on the first date of filing appearance, the concerned advocate did not object to granting a status quo order, which speaks to his conduct. 

The counsel for the respondent opposed the submission, claiming that the petitioner was granted an opportunity but did not avail of the same. 

After examining the WhatsApp chats, the court observed that the petitioner had consistently followed up with her advocate regarding her proceedings. 

The court noted that the petitioner was residing in Chandigarh and had engaged an advocate in Indore for conducting the litigation. She had proceeded on the basis of the information communicated to her by the advocate. However, the record prima facie indicated that, for reasons best known to the earlier advocate, incorrect information had been provided to her regarding developments in the case. 

The court also took note of the fact that the same advocate had earlier given no objection to the grant of a status quo order, which it found unusual in the facts and circumstances of the case. 

The bench, from the material available, held that the advocate's conduct in handling the proceedings, the petitioner could not be made to suffer because of negligent acts or deliberate lapses of her counsel. 

Thus, the bench held, "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. Accordingly, the petition is required to be allowed by granting relief in terms of paragraph 7-B with a further direction to concerned Court to give the proper opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner and pass 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". 

While allowing the petition, the court expressed serious concern over the conduct of advocates who fail to discharge their professional responsibilities with integrity and sincerity, thereby prejudicing the rights of litigants who engage them. 

The court observed that the matter required serious consideration, as such conduct could amount to professional misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, as well as the Bar Council of India Rules. 

The bench directed the petitioner to serve a copy of the order on the State Bar Council so that it could take note of the facts and, if required, initiate suo motu action against the advocate who had earlier represented her before the trial court. 

The bench further held, "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. It is expected that Bar Council shall proceed with the matter in appropriate manner, if it is found that there is some seriousness in the conduct of the respective Advocates, then take appropriate action in accordance with law with a view to maintain a higher standards of the noble professionals". 

Thus, the bench allowed and disposed of the petition. 

For Petitioner: Advocate Raghvendra Singh Raghuvanshi 

For Respondent: Advocate Govind Rai Purohit