The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ordered an inquiry into an alleged attempt to withdraw a first appeal through a purported vakalatnama and affidavit, which the appellant and the concerned advocate both disowned. 

Remarking that "there is something mischievous in the matter and it requires a detailed probe", the bench of Justice Vivek Jain observed:

"The Registrar (Judicial-I) shall cause a detailed inquiry into the matter within four weeks, and if he comes to a conclusion that there is any criminal activity in the matter, then he shall report the matter to the police and get an FIR lodged, so that the guilty are brought to book". 

The said order was passed in an application filed by one Shalini Sharma seeking withdrawal of the appeal. However, the counsel appearing for Sharma, Advocate Joydeep Bhattacharya, informed that he had received no instruction from her to withdraw the matter. The local counsel, SP Mishra, also stated that he had received no such instructions. 

The court examined the record and found that the appeal was originally filed through several advocates, including Advocates Sarvshri S.P. Mishra, Falguni Yadav, Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Shailendra Kumar Patel, Joydeep Bhattacharya, Satyartha Balaji Sinha, and Surendra Kumar.

Subsequently, a vakalatnama was filed on August 5, 2026, purported to be by Ajay Kumar Yadav, with an alleged No Objection Certificate from Mishra. 

When the matter was taken up, Sharma appeared personally along with Advocates Bhattacharya and Mishra and produced her passport for identification. She stated that she did not know Ajay Kumar Yadav and had never executed a Vakalatnama in his favour. Mishra, too, denied having issued any NOC. 

It was noted that the office has deleted the names of earlier counsel, Bhattacharya and Mishra, and retained the name of Ajay Kumar Yadav based on the vakalatnama of August 5, 2026. 

The court further noted that an application seeking withdrawal was filed on August 11, 2026, bearing the signatures of Ajay Kumar Yadav as Advocate and supported by an affidavit purportedly sworn by Sharma on August 9, 2026. 

Sharma categorically denied the affidavit, stating that she did not travel to Jabalpur on August 9 and had no knowledge of any advocate named AK Yadav. She further stated that she had not instructed anyone to withdraw the appeal. 

The court thereafter directed that the matter be further examined and called the concerned advocate as well as the Oath Commissioner before it. 

Ajay Kumar Yadav, thereafter, appeared before the court and disowned the documents. It was stated that he did not know Sharma and had never filed any Vakalatnama in the case and had not filed the withdrawal application. He stated that he practices in the District Court of Jabalpur and produced his identity card bearing his enrollment number. 

The Oath Commissioner, Laxmi Devi Singh, also appeared before the court, claiming that a woman who had approached her on August 9, 2026, was not the same person who is present before the Court as Sharma.

Therefore, the court directed the restoration of Bhattacharya and Mishra as Advocates in the present matter. The court also directed the seizure of the Oath Commissioner's register, observing that it had various overwritings and blank pages on August 9, 2026. 

Therefore, the court directed the Registrar (Judicial I) to conduct a detailed probe into the matter and dismissed the application seeking the withdrawal.  Accordingly, the matter was listed after four weeks. 

Case Title: Shalini Sharma v Dr Rekha Baijal, FA No. 1365 of 2024

For Appellant: Advocates Joydeep Bhattacharya and SP Mishra

For Respondents: Advocates Dharmendra Soni

Click here to read/download the Order