The Supreme Court clarified that a counsel’s “no instruction” pursis does not equate to withdrawal of vakalatnama under the Advocates Act or Civil Manual. Absent a formal withdrawal, the court is not obligated to issue fresh notice; a litigant’s failure to instruct counsel cannot invalidate proceedings. The High Court’s interference under Article 227 was deemed unwarranted.
Facts Of The Case:
The appellant, Shri Digant, filed a civil suit in 2014 against the respondents, M/s. P.D.T. Trading Co. & Ors., for possession under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The defendants were initially served summons, and after they failed to appear, the suit proceeded ex parte. Upon applications, these ex parte orders were later recalled, and the defendants filed written statements. During the trial, the defendants’ advocate filed a pursis (Exhibit-42) stating he had received no instructions from his clients, annexing a copy of a notice he had sent to them. The trial court continued proceedings, recorded the plaintiff’s evidence, and decreed the suit in March 2015. The defendants appealed, arguing they were denied a fair opportunity as the court should have notified them to engage new counsel after their lawyer’s ‘no instruction’ pursis. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding the pursis did not constitute a formal withdrawal of vakalatnama and the defendants were evasive about receiving the notice. The High Court, in a writ petition, set aside the lower courts’ orders, holding that the procedural requirements for a lawyer’s withdrawal were not met. The Supreme Court ultimately allowed the appellant’s appeal, restoring the trial court’s decree.
Procedural History:
The procedural history commenced with the filing of Civil Suit No. 85 of 2014 by the appellant in the Trial Court, which was decreed ex parte. The respondents’ appeal under Section 34 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, was dismissed by the District Judge (Appellate Court) on 16.06.2021. Aggrieved, the respondents invoked the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Nagpur Bench), which allowed Writ Petition No. 4227/2021 on 30.01.2023, set aside the lower courts’ orders, and remanded the matter. The appellant then filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP (C) No. 5813/2023) before the Supreme Court, which granted leave and, in Civil Appeal No. 13801/2025, ultimately allowed the appeal, thereby restoring the judgment and decree of the Trial Court as affirmed by the Appellate Court.
READ ALSO:A Landmark Ruling on Fair Trials: Supreme Court Issues New Guidelines for Video Conferencing and Witness Confrontation
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that the counsel’s pursis stating ‘no instructions’, annexed with a notice to the client, did not constitute a formal withdrawal of vakalatnama as required under the Advocates Act and the Civil Manual. Consequently, the Trial Court was not obligated to issue a fresh notice or adjourn the proceedings. The Court noted the defendants’ evasive conduct and failure to assert non-receipt of the notice, and their inaction for over three months, indicated an intent to delay. It held that a litigant cannot benefit from their own negligence or use procedural technicalities to undermine concluded proceedings. The High Court’s interference under Article 227 was found erroneous, as the Appellate Court’s decision involved no jurisdictional error and was a plausible view based on the record.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order. It restored the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, which had been affirmed by the Appellate Court. The Court held that the High Court erroneously exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, as there was no jurisdictional error in the lower courts’ findings. The writ petition filed by the respondents was dismissed, with parties bearing their own costs.
Case Details:
Case Title: Shri Digant vs. M/s. P.D.T. Trading Co. & Ors. Citation: 2025 INSC 1352 Appeal Number: Civil Appeal No. 13801 of 2025 (@SLP (C) No. 5813 of 2023) Date of Judgement: November 18, 2025 Judges/Justice Name:Justice MANOJ MISRA & Justice JOYMALYA BAGCHI