Expressing shock that an advocate representing a woman was not discharging his duties with full sincerity, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside ex parte proceedings against a Chandigarh-based litigant, ruling that a client should not suffer due to the lawyer’s negligence. The court noted that the woman’s WhatsApp chats showed she had been regularly following up on the case with her lawyer who, instead, chose to mislead her.Justice Sandeep N Bhatt was acting on a plea by the woman, who had engaged an advocate in Indore to represent her in a civil matter, but got to know that her counsel was giving wrong information about her case status and the trial court had even passed an ex parte order.“Considering the fact that is emerging from the record, this Court’s conscience is also shocked to know that the advocates who are representing the parties are not discharging their duties with all integrity and sincerity,” the October 30 order observed.“It can be easily heard that the petitioner cannot be punished due to the negligent act or deliberate lacunas, committed by the Advocate in discharging his duties for conducting the matter in appropriate,” it stated.The court said the matter was very serious as it amounted to professional misconduct, especially considering Section 35 (punishment for misconduct) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and provisions of the Bar Council of India Rules. Justice Sandeep N Bhatt said the matter was very serious as it amounted to professional misconduct.Petitioner accuses advocate of misleading herThe case arose from a civil suit in which the trial court had recorded ex parte (without hearing her side) proceedings against the petitioner on September 23, 2025, due to non-appearance, and passed orders on February 16 and September 1 this year. The woman challenged these orders before the high court, seeking to set aside the ex parte proceedings.Also Read | Union Bank account not mandatory to receive accident compensation: MP High CourtThe petitioner, who was residing in Chandigarh, argued that she had engaged an advocate in Indore to represent her. She regularly followed up on the court proceedings with him through WhatsApp messages. However, the advocate misinformed her about the actual status of the case, leading her to believe that everything was on track.Story continues below this adAppearing through another lawyer, Raghvendra Singh Raghuvanshi, she submitted that additionally, on the very first date of appearance, her advocate had surprisingly given a “no objection” to a status quo order.Upon realising what had happened, she replaced the advocate and filed the petition before the high court. Her current counsel argued that a litigant should not suffer due to the negligence, inaction, or misconduct of their advocate, citing Supreme Court precedents such as Rafiq v Munshilal and Malkiat Singh v Joginder Singh.‘Chat shows woman consistently following up’The court observed that the WhatsApp chat records clearly established that the petitioner was consistently following up on the case with her advocate. However, for reasons best known to him, the lawyer gave her false information regarding the developments in the trial court.The judge noted that the advocate’s conduct was suspicious from the outset, particularly when he gave a “no objection” to a status quo order on the very first date of appearance, which was highly unusual given the facts of the case.Story continues below this adAlso Read | Can your neighbour legally point CCTV at your house? What the law says“Now it is high time for the Bar Council to take a proper call in such a matter and appropriate action may be required to be taken against such erring counsel who are causing certain prejudice to the rights of the parties who have engaged the Advocates,” the judge stated.The court held that an innocent litigant living far away should not suffer or be punished due to the inaction of their chosen counsel. The high court accordingly set aside the ex parte proceedings.