Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Reena Singh vs Smt. Rekha Devi on 15 May, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10926
1 MP-2466-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 15th OF MAY, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 2466 of 2025
SMT. REENA SINGH
Versus
SMT. REKHA DEVI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prakash Chandra Chandil - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri S.S. Kushwaha - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
This miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India has been filed against order dated 09.12.2024 passed by Principal
District Judge, Gwalior in MJC No.454/2024, by which, an application for
restoration of Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.164/2023 has been rejected.
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that petitioner preferred an
appeal against an order, by which the application for grant of temporary
injunction was rejected. The said appeal was registered as MCA
No.164/2023. On 11.01.2024, counsel for petitioner withdrew that appeal and
accordingly the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. As soon as appellant
came to know about the withdrawal of appeal, then she filed an application
for restoration of MCA No.164/2023 on 10.09.2024. By the impugned order
dated 09.12.2024, the said application has been rejected.
3. Challenging the order passed by the Principal District Judge,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10926
2 MP-2466-2025
Gwalior, it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that it is well established
principle of law that the party should not suffer on account of mistake of
his/her counsel. The petitioner had never instructed the previous counsel to
withdraw MCA No.164/2023 and the aforesaid MCA was withdrawn without
any information, knowledge and consent of petitioner, therefore, the Court
below committed a material illegality by not restoring MCA No.164/2023 to
its original number.
4. Considered the submissions made by counsel for petitioner.
5. In the application for restoration of MCA No.164/2023, it was
mentioned by petitioner that she was informed by her previous counsel Shri
Rajveer Dhakad that her personal appearance is not required and he would
prosecute the appeal. It was pleaded that on 07.09.2024, when petitioner
went to Office of Shri Rajveer Dhakad to verify the status of MCA.164/2023
then no satisfactory reply was given. Thereafter, petitioner approached the
arguing counsel who after verifying from the court record informed that the
appeal has already been dismissed as withdrawn.
6. The appeal was withdrawn on 11.01.2024 whereas application for
restoration was filed on 10.09.2024. The civil suit is still pending. The copy
of order dated 11.01.2024 passed by Principal District Judge, Gwalior must
have been received by the trial Court. Therefore, contention of petitioner that
when she approached Shri Rajveer Dhakad on 07.09.2024 then no
satisfactory reply was given cannot be accepted. It is nowhere mentioned in
the memo of application that petitioner had never appeared in the trial Court
after 11.01.2024. It is nowhere mentioned that what transpired before the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10926
3 MP-2466-2025
trial Court from 11.01.2024 to 07.09.2024 was not known to her. It is not
known as to whether written statement was already filed by defendant and
whether the issues were also framed or not and whether the case was ever
fixed for recording of evidence or not ? It is not a simple case of appeal
under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of CPC. Apart from that appeal, a civil suit was
also pending which was being contested by petitioner as a plaintiff. It is true
that Shri Rajveer Dhakad was also appearing in the trial Court but in absence
of any pleading that she had never appeared before the trial Court after
11.01.2024 and she never got an information about the dismissal of appeal
from the record of Trial Court, it is really difficult for this Court to accept
that she approached Shri Rajveer Dhakad only on 07.09.2024.
7. Furthermore, if the allegations made by petitioner against her
previous counsel namely Shri Rajveer Dhakad are found to be proved, then it
would amount to professional misconduct.
8. 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 , it is clear that whether an advocate
has committed a professional misconduct or not is within the exclusive
domain of Bar Council. Admittedly, petitioner has not approached the Bar
Council complaining the professional misconduct of Shri Rajveer Dhakad.
Unless and until it is adjudicated by the Competent Authority that Shri
Rajveer Dhakad was guilty of committing professional misconduct, it cannot
be said that petitioner had suffered at the hands of her earlier counsel.
9. Under these circumstances, this petition is dismissed with liberty to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10926
4 MP-2466-2025
petitioner to approach the Bar Council.
10. If any finding is recorded by the Bar Council with regard to
professional misconduct of Shri Rajveer Dhakad, then petitioner shall be at
liberty to file an application for restoration of miscellaneous petition
alongwith the final order passed by the Bar Council.
1 1 . With aforesaid observation, the petition is dismissed as
withdrawn.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
AK/-
