'Not Litigant's Duty To Act As Watchdog Over Advocate': MP High Court Recalls Ex-Parte Order Passed After Counsel's Non-Appearance

The Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed an application seeking rehearing of a second appeal on the grounds that the advocate abruptly stopped appearing in the matter and failed to inform the litigants regarding subsequent listings or his continued absence. The bench of Justice Pavan Kumar Dwivedi emphasized that when a litigant engages an advocate to represent him, then the former operates on the bona fide belief that the said advocate would duly represent him.The court observed, "once a party to the litigation engaged a lawyer to represent him/them then it was a bonafide belief on the part of the said litigant that the said counsel will duly represent him/them as and when the case is listed before the Court. It is not his duty to act as a watch dog of the advocate on each and every date". The present applicants sought rehearing of their second appeal, wherein an ex parte judgment was passed, effectively affirming the judgment of the appellate court decreasing the share of the applicants in the suit property. The case was related to a property dispute where two of the heirs sought a declaration of title and partition of the suit property. The applicants contended that they had duly appointed an advocate, but during the second appeal hearing, he neither appeared before the court nor informed them about the listing of the appeal or regarding his continued absence. They further submitted that they only discovered the order on April 15 2025.The counsel for the applicants contended that the advocate was responsible and that he failed to provide any satisfactory answer for his absence. On the other hand, the respondents submitted that the applicants did not appear before the court deliberately. It was contended that the applicants knew about the order since April 15, 2025, but despite that, they did not file applications for rehearing until August 28, 2025. The court noted that the applicants had engaged a counsel who entered an appearance and represented them up to October 9, 2015. However, from January 14, 2016, he stopped appearing in the matter, but there was no material to show that the applicants were informed about the subsequent listings of the appeal. The bench noted that no SPC notice was issued by the Court despite the continued absence of the counsel. Relying on the Apex Court judgments in the cases of Rafiq v Munshilal [AIR 1981 SC 1400] and Ram Kumar Gupta v Har Prasad [2010 AIR SCW 766], the court emphasized that a litigant cannot be expected to act as a watchdog over their advocate and should not suffer due to the advocate's default. Therefore, the court allowed the application under Order 41 Rule 21 for rehearing.Case Title: Dayaram v Raju Bai [MCC-2808-2025]For Petitioners: Advocate Vaibhav BhagwatFor Respondents: Advocate Abhishek GuptaClick here to read/download the Order

'Not Litigant's Duty To Act As Watchdog Over Advocate': MP High Court Recalls Ex-Parte Order Passed After Counsel's Non-Appearance

Jayanti Pahwa

Tags