Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Pushpa vs Chhiddiram Kushwaha on 21 February, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 21 st OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. PETITION No. 825 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. SMT. PUSHPA W/O LATE SHRI AMARCHANDRA
TRIPATHI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O SHANTI
NAGAR COLONY, CHHATARPUR TEHSIL AND
DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MOHANLAL S/O RAMBAGAS PATEL, AGED ABOUT
27 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BARDWAHKALA TEHSIL
NAUGANV DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI ANUJ AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. CHHIDDIRAM KUSHWAHA S/O TUDA KUSHWAHA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O
NARSINGHGARHPURWA CHHATARPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RAMKISHORE KUSHWAHA S/O TUDA
KUSHWAHA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O
NARSINGHGARHPURWA CHHATARPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. RAMKRISHAN S/O DWARKA PRASAD GOSWAMI
(DEAD) NOT MENTION (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SMT KAMLA GOSWAMI W/O LATE SHRI DWARKA
PRASAD GOSWAMI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O
SHANTI NAGAR COLONY CHHATARPUR TEHSIL
AND DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. ALOK DUBEY S/O LATE SHRI KASHI PRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O PATHAPUR ROAD
BEHIND JANJNI TRANSPORT CHHATARPUR
TEHSIL AND DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TRUPTI GUNJAL
Signing time: 22-02-2024
18:13:53
2
PRADESH)
6. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
COLLECTOR, DISTRICT COLLECTOR DISTRICT
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MOHAN SAUSARKAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed
seeking the following reliefs :-
(i) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
set aside the order dated 04.10.2023 passed by the
VIth Additional Judge, Chhatarpur in MJC
No.55/2018 in the interest of justice.
(ii) This Hon'ble Court may further be kindly
pleased to allow the application filed by the
appellants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in
the interest of justice.
(iii) Any other relief to which the petitioner is
found entitled to be also granted.
(iv) Cost of the petition.
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioners that on 14.01.2016 the
petitioners were proceeded ex parte and ultimately an ex parte decree was
passed on 31.03.2017. The petitioners came to know about the passing of such
ex parte decree on 15.02.2018 and, therefore, the application under Order 9
Rule 13 CPC was filed, which has been dismissed by the trial court by
impugned order.
3. It is further submitted by counsel for petitioners that after the notices
of the civil suit were served, the petitioners contacted their previous counsel and
also paid a fee of Rs.10,000/- by way of full and final payment along with the
expenses of the litigation. However, without informing the petitioners, their
previous counsel Shri Khare did not appear before the trial court as a result,
they were proceeded ex parte. The petitioners were not informed by Shri Khare
about the ex parte proceedings and under these circumstances, it is submitted
that the petitioners should not suffer on account of mistake committed by the
counsel.
4. Considered the submissions made by counsel for petitioners.
5. If the allegations made by the petitioners against their previous counsel
are found to be correct, then it would amount to professional misconduct.
6. In the light of judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of
R.Muthukrishnan Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at
Madras, reported in (2019) 16 SCC 407, the said question is within the
exclusive domain of Bar Council, therefore, this Court cannot give a finding as
to whether the previous counsel of petitioners was guilty of any professional
misconduct or not?
7. During the course of arguments it was fairly conceded by counsel for
petitioners that the petitioners have not approached the Bar Council against their
previous counsel.
8. Accordingly, this Court is of considered opinion that in case if the
petitioners approach the Bar Council and obtain a final order against their
previous counsel, then they can be granted liberty to file an application under
Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC.
9. Accordingly with aforesaid liberty the petition is disposed of.
10.It is made clear the in case if the Bar Council comes to a conclusion
that the previous counsel for petitioners is guilty of professional misconduct
and if a fresh application under section 9 Rule 13 CPC is filed, then the same
shall be reconsidered by the trial court without getting influenced or prejudiced
by the impugned order.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
TG /-
