Rahul Jain vs Neha Jain
2024 Latest Caselaw 16311 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rahul Jain vs Neha Jain on 31 May, 2024

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

                           1                 MCRC No.22950/2024



IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
            A T JA B A L P U R
                        BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                 ON THE 31st OF MAY, 2024
           MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 22950 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
RAHUL JAIN S/O SHRI RAMESH CHAND JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION: INSURANCE AGENT
R/O HOUSE NO.194, AKSHAY DHAM, CHOTTI BAZAR
KAILASHPURI BANDA (UTTAR PRADESH) - 210001

                                                  .....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI KAPIL DUGGAL - ADVOCATE)

AND
1.   NEHA JAIN D/O SHRI MAHESH DAYAL JAIN, AGED
     ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PROFESSOR R/O
     HOUSE NO.30, NEAR FOOTI BABADI, NAVEEN
     NAGAR COLONY, AESHBAG DISTRICT BHOPAL
     (MADHYA PRADESH) - 462001

2.   STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
     PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VALLABH BHAWAN,
     BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH) - 462011

3.   COLLECTOR        COLLECTOR         OFFICE,
     COLLECTORATE, A-BLOCK, OLD SECTT., BHOPAL
     (MADHYA PRADESH) - 462001

4.   RAMESH    CHANDRA      JAIN  S/O   SHRI P.
     SIKHARCHAND JAIN R/O HOUSE NO. 194
     AKAHAYDHAM CHOTI BAZAAR, KAILASHPUR
     BANDA 21001, BANDA (UTTAR PRADESH)

5.   SMT. REKHA RANI JAIN W/O SHRI RAMESH
     CHAND JAIN, AGED ADULT R/O HOUSE NO.194,
     AKAHAYDHAM CHOTI BAZAAR, KAILASHPURA
     BANDA 21001 BANDA (UTTAR PRADESH)

6.   RAJNEESH JAIN S/O SHRI RAMESH CHAND JAIN
     AGED ADULT, R/O HOUSE NO. 194, AKAHAYDHAM
     CHOTTI BAZAR, KAILASHPURI BANDA 21001,
     BANDA (UTTAR PRADESH)
                                  2                      MCRC No.22950/2024



7.    SMT. SURBHI JAIN W/O SHRI RAJNEESH JAIN
      AGED ADULT R/O HOUSE NO.194, AKAHAYDHAM
      CHORI BAZAAR, KAILASHPURA BANDA 21001,
      BANDA (UTTAR PRADESH)

8.    SWAROOP CHANDRA JAIN S/O SHRI SIKHAR
      CHANDRA JAIN, AGED ADULT R/O CHORI
      BAZAAR, KAILASHPURA, BANDA 21001, BANDA
      (UTTAR PRADESH)

9.    SMT. JYOTI RANI JAIN W/O SHRI SWAROOP
      CHANDRA JAIN, AGED AULT R/O CHORI BAZAAR
      KAILASHPUR BANDA (UTTAR PRADESH)

10.   SMT. RAGINI JAIN W/O DR. RISHABH JAIN, AGED
      AULT R/O SARTHAK HOMEO CLINIC, GALLA
      MANDI ROAD, VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)

11.   DR. RISHABH JAIN S/O SHEEL CHANDRA JAIN,
      AGED AULT R/O SARTHAK HOMEO CLINIC,
      GALLA MANDI ROAD, VIDISHA (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI DILIP PARIHAR - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENTS NOS.2 &
3/STATE)
       This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
                               ORDER

This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for recall of order dated 13.05.2024 passed in MCRC No.19092/2023.

2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that although Vakalatnama was filed by applicant on 19.08.2023 but applicant came to Jabalpur on 01.02.2024 for preparation of return. All the documents which were necessary for filing of return were given to his counsel and necessary papers were also signed. Applicant was all the time misled by his earlier counsel that reply has been filed but in fact reply was not filed at all. It is further submitted that applicant had also paid fee to his counsel but even necessary fee payable on Vakalatnama was also not submitted by

his counsel. It is further submitted that applicant has already approached the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur by filing a complaint on 27.05.2024 in which he has specifically alleged in paragraph Nos.4 to 9 about professional misconduct committed by his earlier counsel. It is further submitted that since applicant was not negligent in prosecuting his case but it was on account of professional misconduct by his previous counsel, therefore, order dated 13.05.2024 passed in MCRC No.19092/2023 may be recalled. To buttress his contention, counsel for applicant has relied upon the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq and another v. Munshilal and another, reported in (1981) 2 SCC 788. It is further submitted that in the light of judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and another, reported in (2011) 14 SCC 770, application for recall of order is maintainable and it would not be hit by the provisions of section 362 of Cr.P.C.

3. Heard learned counsel for applicant.

4. Applicant has made the following allegations in his complaint to the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur which reads as under:

"2- esjs f[kykQ tcyiqj es ,d MCRC no.19092 of 2023 usgk tSu fo#) jkgqy tSu o vU; okn çLrqr fd;k x;k FkkA ftldh tkudkjh gksus ds ckn esjs }kjk vf/koäk Jh çnhi dqekj nqcs th ls ckrphr djus ds ckn Jh çnhi dqekj nqcs th us eq>s Jh iou dqekj lDlsuk th ls okn es iSjoh djkus ds fy, dgkA vf/koäk çnhi dqekj nqcs ds dgus ij eSaus vf/k--r vf/koäk Jh iou dqekj lDlsuk] ,MoksdVs ] dks okn ls lacaf/kr lkjs nLrkost ,oa os nLrkost ftuds vk/kkj ij ;g okn lafLFkr fd;k x;k Fkk 'kq#vkr es gh çnku dj fn, Fks rkfd okn es fdlh çdkj dk dksbZ foyac u gks vkSj iSjoh djus es Hkh dksbZ ijs'kkuh u vk, lkFk gh vf/koäk dh vf/koäk 'kqYd Hkh Jh iou dqekj lDlsuk ,MoksdVs dks vnk dj nh

x;hA okn esa Jh iou dqekj lDlsuk] ,MoksdVs ] }kjk esjh rjQ ls vf/k--r gksdj odkyrukek Hkh 19-08-2023 dks is'k dj fn;k FkkA

3- vf/koäk çnhi dqekj nqcs th us 'kq#vkr es vk'oklu nsrs gq, ;g dgk dh vki okn dh fpark u djsA Jh iou dqekj lDlsuk th vPNs ls vkidk okn laHkky ysaxsA

4- fnukad 13-05-2024 dks vf/koäk çnhi dqekj nqcs ds }kjk çkFkhZ dks d‚y ds ek/;e ls ;g crk;k x;k dh vki tcyiqj gkbZ dksVZ ls okn es gkj pqds gS vkSj yap le; rd bles vkns'k Hkh ikfjr gks tkosxkA eSaus dbZ ckj vf/koäk iou dqekj lDlsuk ls ckr djus dh dksf'k'k dh ysfdu Qksu dkYl ij Hkh vf/koäk iou dqekj th }kjk ;gh cksyk tkrk Fkk dh oks vHkh O;Lr gS] 'kknh es gS] ;k ckgj gSA eq>ls ckr Hkh ugha djrs FksA eSa ckj ckj vf/koäk ls okn dh çfrfyfi ek¡xrk jgk ysfdu vf/koäk us okn dh dksbZ tkudkjh ugha nh rc eSaus ,d ckj fnukad 01-02-2024 dks tcyiqj tkdj Hkh muls feyus dh dksf'k'k dh Fkh ysfdu vf/koäk us v‚fQl feyus u cqykdj gkbZ dksVZ ds ifjlj es tks guqeku eafnj gS ogk¡ feyus ds fy, cqyk;k vkSj ogh dgh eqykdkr dh xbZA rc eSaus okn ls lacaf/kr nLrkost dksVZ es is'k djus ds fy, iou dqekj lDlsuk vf/koäk dks nksckjk çnku fd,A tc bl ckr dh tkudkjh vf/koäk çnhi dqekj nqcs dks gqbZ rc vf/koäk çnhi dqekj nqcs us eq>s Qksu djds xqLlk fd;k ,oa fpYykrs gq, eq>s dgk fd vki okn dh fpark u djs vkidks vxj vf/koäk iou dqekj lDlsuk ls feyuk gS ckr djuk gS rks vki fdlh vkSj ls okn dks yM+ok ys ge vkidk okn NksM+ nsrs gSA vf/koäk çnhi dqekj nqcs us eq>s Qksu ij ;g Hkh dgk fd vxj vkidks bruh fpark gS rks vki Lo;a vf/koäk cu tk;sAa bl rjg ls dbZ ckj çkFkhZ dks fujk'k fd;k x;kA

5- MCRC no.19092 of 2023 usgk tSu fo#) jkgqy tSu o vU; okn 28 vçSy 2023 dks nkf[ky gks pqdk Fkk ftldh rqjar ckn gh esjs }kjk lkjs nLrkost Jh iou dqekj lDlsuk vf/koäk dks çnku dj fn;s x;s FksA ijarq dbZ ckj iwNus ds ckn Hkh Jh iou dqekj lDlsuk vf/koäk }kjk dksbZ tkudkjh eq>dks ugha nh dsoy ;gh vk'oklu nsrs jgs dh dk;Zokgh vPNs <ax ls py jgh gS vkSj tokc Hkh le; ij çLrqr dj fn;k x;k gSA esjs ckj ckj ek¡xus ij Hkh Jh iou dqekj lDlsuk vf/koäk us tokc dh çfrfyfi ugha çnku dhA f}rh; lquokbZ dks yxHkx ,d o"kZ gks x;k Fkk ysfdu vf/koäk iou dqekj lDlsuk th us dksbZ vfxze lquokbZ ;k vius i{kdkj ds fgr es lquokbZ gks ,slh dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dh vkSj uk gh fjIykbZ Qkby

fd;k x;k vkSj uk gh vf/koäk iou dqekj lDlsuk us eq>s uk rks çFke lquokbZ ds ckjs es crk;k uk gh f}rh; lquokgh ds ckjs es crk;k x;kA fnukad 13-05-2024 dks tc vafre lquokbZ Fkh mlds ckjs es Hkh eq>s ugha crk;k x;kA

6- vkns'k fnukad 13-05-2024 dks tks ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk vafre vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k Fkk ml vkns'k ds voyksdu ls eq>s Kkr gqvk dh vf/koäk iou dqekj lDlsuk ds }kjk çdj.k esa esjs cpko dks çLrqr djus esa dh xbZ vfu;ferrk vO;ogkfjdrkvks dks crk;k x;k gSA vf/koäk iou dqekj lDlsukth us 19-08-2023 dks v‚uykbu eksM es odhy i= is'k fd;k odhy i= es uk gh vf/koäk dY;k.k fuf/k dk Hkqxrku Fkk uk gh dksVZ Qhl is'k dh xbZ Fkh ,oa ewy odkyr ukek ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa is'k ugha fd;k x;k] tcfd esjs }kjk Qhl Hkh vnk dj nh xbZ Fkh vr,o ;g muds }kjk fd;k tkuk FkkA gkyk¡fd eq>s vk'oklu fn;k x;k Fkk fd esjs }kjk dksVZ esa tokc is'k dj fn;k x;k gS fQj Hkh mUgksua s dksbZ tokc vFkok nLrkost ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k is'k ugha fd;k] ftlds vHkko esa esjs f[kykQ ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;kA vr% buds bl ykijokgh iw.kZ --R; ls eq>s {kfr gqbZ gS tks dh dnkpj.k dh Js.kh esa vkrk gSA

7- eSaus tc vkns'k fnukad 13-05-2024 ds vkns'k çfrfyfi ekaxh rks mlds fy, Hkh vf/koäk iou dqekj lDlsuk ,oa çnhi dqekj nwcs }kjk ;g dgk x;k dh vki gkbZ dksVZ dh osclkbV ls vkns'k dh çfrfyfi fudky yhft,A eSa tc vkns'k dh çfrfyfi fudkyus es vleFkZ jgk rc Hkh esjs }kjk vf/koäk ls fuosnu djds iwNus ds i'pkr Hkh vf/koäk us dgk dh 'kk;n gkbZ dksVZ dh lkbV ij vkns'k dh çfrfyfi viyksM ugha gqbZ gksxh blfy, vkidks çkIr ugha gks jgh gS ijarq ,slk ugha Fkk vkns'k fnukad 13-05-2024 dks lquokgh gqbZ vkSj 15-05-2024 dks vkns'k 2 ctdj 38 feuV ij viyksM gks pqdk FkkA ijarq vf/koäk iou dqekj lDlsuk th us yxHkx ,d lIrkg rd çkFkhZ dks d‚ih ugha nhA rc esjs firk Jh jes'k paæ th tks fd 73 o"kZ ds gS tks pyus es Hkh vleFkZ gS mUgksaus fnukad 21- 05-2024 dks tcyiqj tkdj vf/koäk ls fuosnu fd;k vkSj feyus ds fy, dgk rks mUgs vf/koäk iou dqekj lDlsuk }kjk U;k;y; ifjlj es tks guqeku eafnj gS ogh vkdj feyus ds fy, dgkA esjs firk us vf/koäk ls fourh dh vkSj vuqjks/k fd;k rc tkdj vf/koäk us vkns'k dh çfrfyfi fnukad 21-05-2024 dks esjs firk dks nh vkSj esjs firk }kjk eq>s çfrfyfi 22-05-2024 dks çkIr gqbZA

8- esjs }kjk vfrfjä çdj.k FA NO. 229/2024 vf/koäk Jh iou dqekj lDlsuk }kjk is'k djok;k x;k gS ftlesa Hkh jftLVªh }kjk fMQsDV yxk, x, gSa tks dh vf/koäk Jh iou dqekj lDlsuk }kjk vkt fnukad rd ugha Bhd fd, x, gSa ftl dkj.k ;g çdj.k vkt fnukad rd igyh lquokbZ ij Hkh ugha vk;k gSA ;g Hkh Jh iou dqekj lDlsuk th ykijokgh n'kkZrk gSA

9- çkFkhZ çkjaHk ls gh vf/koäk ds fel dUMDV ls ijs'kku FkkA vf/koäk Jh iou dqekj lDlsuk }kjk mä of.kZr vuqlkj esjs cpko ls lacaf/kr nLrkost rFkk cpko i{k is'k djus esa ykijokgh] mis{kk] mnklhurk dh Jh lDlsuk vf/koäk vius drZO; esa dh xbZ fuf"Ø;rk rFkk vdeZ.;rk ds dkj.k çkFkhZ ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k viuk cpko iw.kZr% ,oa çHkkoh :i ls çLrqr ugha dj ldk vkSj U;k; ikus ls oafpr gks x;kA""

5. Even in this application the following averments have been made:

"2.2. That, the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice in as much as despite having all documents to effectively counter all points of the Respondent No.1, the Applicant was misled into believing those documents had been filed in the case and will be considered during hearing, whereas the fact remains that no such document was placed on record due to the fault of engaged counsel for the Applicant. It is settled law that litigant should not suffer due to the mistake of the counsel. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be recalled.

2.3. That, the inaction, and negligence on part of the earlier engaged counsel has resulted in violations of principles of natural justice, in as much as, the side/stand/defense of the Applicant was never put forth before the Hon'ble High Court, had it been put forth, then the outcome of the case in all likelihood would be different, thereby causing irreparable injury and prejudice to the Applicant. The net result is that the Applicant is now facing the brunt of irresponsibility and negligence as well as false assurance on part of the earlier counsel that reply had been filed whereas this was not true. Effectively, the defense of the Applicant was not placed before the

Hon'ble High Court there by violating the principles of natural justice."

6. Thus, applicant is alleging professional misconduct against his previous counsel.

7. Now the only question for consideration is as to whether this Court should recall its order dated 13.05.2024 passed in MCRC No.19092/2023 or not?

8. The Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq (supra) has held as under:

"3. The disturbing feature of the case is that under our present adversary legal system where the parties generally appear through their advocates, the obligation of the parties is to select his advocate, brief him, pay the fees demanded by him and then trust the learned Advocate to do the rest of the things. The party may be a villager or may belong to a rural area and may have no knowledge of the court's procedure. After engaging a lawyer, the party may remain supremely confident that the lawyer will look after his interest. At the time of the hearing of the appeal, the personal appearance of the party is not only not required but hardly useful. Therefore, the party having done everything in his power to effectively participate in the proceedings can rest assured that he has neither to go to the High Court to inquire as to what is happening in the High Court with regard to his appeal nor is he to act as a watchdog of the advocate that the latter appears in the matter when it is listed. It is no part of his job. Mr A.K. Sanghi stated that a practice has grown up in the High Court of Allahabad amongst the lawyers that they remain absent when they do not like a particular Bench. Maybe, we do not know, he is better informed in this matter. Ignorance in this behalf is our bliss. Even if we do not put our seal of imprimatur on the alleged practice by dismissing this matter which may discourage such a tendency, would

it not bring justice delivery system into disrepute. What is the fault of the party who having done everything in his power expected of him would suffer because of the default of his advocate. If we reject this appeal, as Mr A.K. Sanghi invited us to do, the only one who would suffer would not be the lawyer who did not appear but the party whose interest he represented. The problem that agitates us is whether it is proper that the party should suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission, or misdemeanour of his agent. The answer obviously is in the negative. Maybe that the learned Advocate absented himself deliberately or intentionally. We have no material for ascertaining that aspect of the matter. We say nothing more on that aspect of the matter. However, we cannot be a party to an innocent party suffering injustice merely because his chosen advocate defaulted. Therefore, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court both dismissing the appeal and refusing to recall that order. We direct that the appeal be restored to its original number in the High Court and be disposed of according to law. If there is a stay of dispossession it will continue till the disposal of the matter by the High Court. There remains the question as to who shall pay the costs of the respondent here. As we feel that the party is not responsible because he has done whatever was possible and was in his power to do, the costs amounting to Rs 200 should be recovered from the advocate who absented himself. The right to execute that order is reserved with the party represented by Mr A.K. Sanghi."

9. Thus, it is clear that litigant should not suffer on account of mistake committed by his counsel.

10. The Supreme Court in the case of Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (supra) has held as under:

"III. Bar to review/alter judgment

44. There is no power of review with the criminal court after the judgment has been rendered. The High Court can alter or review its judgment before it is signed. When an order is passed, it cannot be reviewed. Section 362 CrPC is based on an acknowledged principle of law that once a matter is finally disposed of by a court, the said court in the absence of a specific statutory provision becomes functus officio and is disentitled to entertain a fresh prayer for any relief unless the former order of final disposal is set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction in a manner prescribed by law. The court becomes functus officio the moment the order for disposing of a case is signed. Such an order cannot be altered except to the extent of correcting a clerical or arithmetical error. There is also no provision for modification of the judgment. (See Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa [(2001) 1 SCC 169 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 113] and Chhanni v. State of U.P. [(2006) 5 SCC 396 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 466] )

45. Moreover, the prohibition contained in Section 362 CrPC is absolute; after the judgment is signed, even the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC has no authority or jurisdiction to alter/review the same. (See Moti Lal v. State of M.P. [(2012) 11 SCC 427 : AIR 1994 SC 1544] , Hari Singh Mann [(2001) 1 SCC 169 :

2001 SCC (Cri) 113] and State of Kerala v. M.M. Manikantan Nair [(2001) 4 SCC 752 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 808] .)

46. If a judgment has been pronounced without jurisdiction or in violation of principles of natural justice or where the order has been pronounced without giving an opportunity of being heard to a party affected by it or where an order was obtained by abuse of the process of court which would really amount to its being without jurisdiction, inherent powers can be exercised to recall such order for the reason that in such an eventuality the order becomes a nullity and the provisions of Section 362 CrPC

would not operate. In such an eventuality, the judgment is manifestly contrary to the audi alteram partem rule of natural justice. The power of recall is different from the power of altering/reviewing the judgment. However, the party seeking recall/alteration has to establish that it was not at fault. (Vide Chitawan v. Mahboob Ilahi [1970 Cri LJ 378 (All)] , Deepak Thanwardas Balwani v. State of Maharashtra [1985 Cri LJ 23 (Bom)] , Habu v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1987 Raj 83] , Swarth Mahto v. Dharmdeo Narain Singh [(1972) 2 SCC 273 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 676] , Makkapati Nagaswara Sastri v. S.S. Satyanarayan [(1981) 1 SCC 62 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 111] , Asit Kumar Kar v. State of W.B. [(2009) 2 SCC 703 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 851 :

(2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 541] and Vishnu Agarwal v. State of U.P. [(2011) 14 SCC 813] )

47. This Court by virtue of Article 137 of the Constitution has been invested with an express power to review any judgment in criminal law and while no such power has been conferred on the High Court, inherent power of the court cannot be exercised for doing that which is specifically prohibited by the Code itself. (Vide State v. K.V. Rajendran [(2008) 8 SCC 673 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 600 : AIR 2009 SC 46] .)

48. In Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal [(1981) 1 SCC 500 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 188 : AIR 1981 SC 736] this Court held that the prohibition in Section 362 CrPC against the Court altering or reviewing its judgment, is subject to what is "otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force".

Those words, however, refer to those provisions only where the Court has been expressly authorised by the Code or other law to alter or review its judgment. The inherent power of the Court is not contemplated by the saving provision contained in Section 362 CrPC and, therefore, the attempt to invoke that power can be of no avail.

49. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that the criminal justice delivery system does not clothe the court to add or delete any words, except to correct the clerical or arithmetical error as specifically been provided under the statute itself after pronouncement of the judgment as the Judge becomes functus officio. Any mistake or glaring omission is left to be corrected only by the appropriate forum in accordance with law."

11. In order to hold that it was the mistake of counsel, this Court will be required to look into the allegations made by applicant. If allegations which have been made by applicant are considered, then it is clear that applicant is alleging professional misconduct against his earlier counsel. The Supreme Court in the case of R. Muthukrishnan v. Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Madras, reported in (2019) 16 SCC 407 has held that the question of professional misconduct by an Advocate is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Bar Council. Therefore, the allegations made by applicant against his earlier counsel cannot be considered because it lies within the exclusive domain of Bar Council. Applicant has also filed a complaint before the M.P. State Bar Council.

12. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that however this Court can give a prima facie finding that applicant had done everything for filing his reply and therefore, he should not be made to suffer.

13. The aforesaid contention made by counsel for applicant cannot be accepted.

14. Whether applicant had given the documents to his earlier counsel or not, whether his earlier counsel did not file any reply in spite of instructions given by applicant are certain disputed questions of fact which if proved may amount to professional misconduct and if could

not be proved by applicant, then his complaint would be liable to be dismissed.

15. Whether applicant had provided the documents to his counsel or not is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court because any finding given on this aspect would necessarily have an impact on the complaint made by applicant before the Bar Council alleging professional misconduct by his earlier counsel.

16. Any finding given by a Court having no jurisdiction would be a nullity and if a Court comes to a conclusion that it has no jurisdiction to take up the matter, then should refrain itself from giving any finding. Even otherwise once the matter is pending before the State Bar Council, then any word here and there will prejudice the parties. Furthermore, applicant has not impleaded his earlier counsel and in his absence no allegation made against him can be considered.

17. Accordingly, considering the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq (supra), this petition is dismissed with liberty to applicant to revive the same after the guilt of earlier counsel is established in the Bar Council.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE vc

VARSHA CHOURASIYA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, 2.5.4.20=f460d4685ef5a4622238f0

CHOUR b59b78c2407fd3ee2f619d9ce8e42 8c224c23ec8ac, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh,

ASIYA serialNumber=A0506346908D8FD C4A2DA9968A85B01E1D95EF7D16 30553560798626817C4267, cn=VARSHA CHOURASIYA Date: 2024.06.01 12:27:06 +05'30'