Justice Cannot Be Denied Due To Lawyer’s Non-Appearance: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reiterated a settled but often overlooked principle of procedural fairness, holding that litigants should not be made to suffer for the lapses of their legal counsel, while restoring a petition that had earlier been dismissed for non-prosecution.

In an order passed on April 2, 2026, a Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal allowed a miscellaneous petition filed by Birbal Singh, setting aside an earlier order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which had refused to restore his original application.

The case arose from the dismissal of Original Application No. 858 of 2019 by the Tribunal due to repeated non-appearance of the applicant and his counsel. Subsequently, a miscellaneous application seeking restoration of the original proceedings was also dismissed on March 21, 2024, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Vijay Kumar Tripathi argued that the absence before the Tribunal was neither deliberate nor attributable to the petitioner, who had relied entirely on his counsel to represent his interests. On the other hand, Advocate Shrikrishna Sharma, representing the respondents, supported the Tribunal’s order.

The High Court, however, found merit in the petitioner’s grievance and took a pragmatic view of the circumstances leading to the dismissal of the original application. The Bench noted that there was no explanation forthcoming from the earlier counsel regarding his absence before the Tribunal. At the same time, it recognized that a litigant, particularly one unfamiliar with procedural intricacies, places implicit trust in legal representation and cannot be expected to monitor every hearing personally.

Emphasizing this aspect, the Court observed that “the law is well settled that the parties should not suffer because of the fault on the part of the counsel.” The Bench further recorded that the petitioner was under the bona fide impression that his counsel was diligently handling the case and that his personal presence was not required on every date of hearing.

Importantly, the Court also took into account the promptness shown by the petitioner in seeking restoration. It noted that immediately after the dismissal of the original application, a miscellaneous application had been filed within the same year, indicating that the petitioner remained vigilant and intended to pursue the matter on merits.

In doing so, the Court underscored that procedural rules are meant to advance justice rather than defeat it. A rigid application of procedural defaults, particularly in cases where the litigant is not personally at fault, would undermine access to justice and erode confidence in the legal system.

Balancing equities, the Bench allowed the petition and quashed the Tribunal’s order dated March 21, 2024. It directed that the original application be restored to its original number, thereby giving the petitioner another opportunity to have his case adjudicated on merits.

However, the Court also imposed a cost of Rs. 1,000 on the petitioner, payable to the Central Administrative Tribunal Bar Association at Jabalpur.

Case Title: Birbal Singh v. Union of India and Others

Date of Order: April 2, 2026

Bench: Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal