Litigant Not to Suffer for Counsel’s Lapse; MP High Court Pilots a “Social Audit” Restorative Measure While Restoring a 14-Year-Old Writ

Introduction

Case: Sushil Verma v. Madhya Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Gwalior and Others (Writ Appeal No. 2566 of 2025)

Citation: 2025 MPHC-GWL 23027 | Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench) | Date: 19 September 2025

Coram: Hon’ble Shri Justice Anand Pathak and Hon’ble Shri Justice Pushpendra Yadav

The Division Bench addressed a narrow but practically important question: whether a writ petition, pending since 2011 and dismissed for want of prosecution due to non-appearance of counsel, should be restored when the default is attributed to counsel’s bona fide lapse. In doing so, the Court reaffirmed a settled principle—litigants should not suffer for their counsel’s fault—and, in a notable innovation, piloted a “social audit” style, non-punitive, community-service oriented measure accepted by counsel and linked to the restoration process.

Parties and representation: The appellant, Sushil Verma, had pursued a writ petition since 2011 alleging denial of promotion. After the writ was dismissed for default on 21 July 2025 and a restoration application (MCC No. 2800/2025) was rejected on 13 August 2025, he preferred the present writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005. The appellant was represented in appeal by Shri Prashant Singh Kaurav; the factual matrix narrates that in the writ proceedings, new counsel (Shri Prashant Sharma) had been engaged shortly before the dismissal.

Key issues:

Whether dismissal of a long-pending writ petition for non-appearance—when the default was attributable to counsel and not to the litigant’s lack of diligence—should be sustained.
Whether the subsequent refusal to restore (MCC dismissed for want of sufficient cause) withstands scrutiny.
To what extent a High Court may, in the exercise of its equitable and supervisory jurisdiction, incorporate a restorative, community-oriented measure (“social audit”) linked to the order restoring proceedings.

Summary of the Judgment

The Division Bench allowed the writ appeal, set aside both the dismissal for default (order dated 21.07.2025 in W.P. No. 6797/2011) and the order refusing restoration (order dated 13.08.2025 in MCC No. 2800/2025), and restored the writ petition to its original number.
Applying the settled law that a litigant should not suffer for counsel’s lapse, the Court treated the non-appearance as a bona fide mistake and favored adjudication on merits over technical dismissal.
In a novel step, the Court introduced a “social audit” concept: counsel for the appellant voluntarily accepted a suggestion to visit Madhav Andha Ashram, Gwalior, carry food items worth Rs. 10,000, spend one hour with the inmates, and submit a brief report within 15 days. The Bench clarified the suggestion is non-punitive; yet, having been accepted, the order records directions for a report and links restoration to compliance, stating the appeal is allowed “subject to compliance” within one month.
Copies of the order were directed to be sent to senior government functionaries (Women and Child Development, Social Justice, and the Secretary, Juvenile Justice Committee of the High Court) for information and contemplation, indicating a broader policy nudge toward community oversight of welfare institutions.

Detailed Analysis

Procedural Timeline and Context

2011: W.P. No. 6797/2011 filed by the appellant concerning promotion in service.
27.06.2025: No appearance for the petitioner; the writ court ordered issuance of a special notice (“SPC”) to ensure communication.
18.07.2025: Appellant engaged new counsel who filed a vakalatnama.
21.07.2025: On the next date, counsel could not appear (engaged in another court); the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution.
13.08.2025: MCC No. 2800/2025 for restoration was dismissed; the writ court noted the 14-year pendency and counsel’s unreadiness to argue.
19.09.2025: Division Bench allowed the appeal, set aside both orders, restored the writ petition, and introduced a “social audit” step accepted by counsel.

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The Bench anchored its decision in the well-entrenched principle that litigants should not suffer for an advocate’s default, citing three authorities:

Rafiq And Another v. Munshilal And Another, AIR 1981 SC 1400:
The Supreme Court famously held that it would be unjust to penalize a litigant for the non-appearance or dereliction of his counsel. This case is routinely invoked to set aside ex parte orders and dismissals for default when the litigant’s conduct is bona fide. The present Bench draws directly from this ratio to excuse the lapse on 21.07.2025.
M.K. Prasad v. P. Arumugam, AIR 2001 SC 2497:
Reinforces a liberal, justice-oriented approach to “sufficient cause,” particularly where denial of relief would result in grave injustice disproportionate to the default. The Bench uses this to guide the restoration exercise, especially significant given the writ’s 14-year pendency concerning a service promotion claim.
Dindayal Bansal v. Gwalior Nagar Tatha Gram Vikas Pradhikaran, 2007 (5) MPHT 470:
A Madhya Pradesh High Court authority emphasizing that procedural technicalities should yield to substantial justice where the cause is bona fide and the opposing side is not irreparably prejudiced. This lends intra-court continuity to the Division Bench’s approach.

Taken together, these precedents map out a discretionary but clear path: if the non-appearance was not willful, the cause substantial, and prejudice manageable, courts prefer restoring the matter for decision on merits.

Legal Reasoning

Bona fide lapse, not contumacious conduct: The appellant’s explanation was that he changed counsel after the court issued a special notice (SPC), the vakalatnama was filed before the next date, and on that next date the new counsel was engaged elsewhere. The Division Bench found this a genuine mistake rather than a pattern of neglect or abandonment, aligning with the Rafiq principle.
Primacy of adjudication on merits in service matters: A writ alleging denial of promotion raises continuing civil consequences. Dismissing such a petition on a technical ground—after 14 years of pendency—risked foreclosing substantive rights without a merits determination. The Bench underscores that justice favors adjudication over procedural fatality, particularly where public employment rights are implicated.
“Sufficient cause” assessed through a justice-oriented lens: While the writ court’s frustration with docket delay is understandable, the appellate analysis implicitly applies a structured test: (a) Is there a credible reason for default? (b) Is the relief substantial? (c) Is there prejudice to the other side that cannot be compensated? (d) Is the litigant himself blameworthy? Finding the balance tipped toward restoration, the Bench sets aside both the default dismissal and the refusal to restore.
Innovative but non-punitive restorative step—“Social Audit”: Uniquely, the Bench proposed, and counsel accepted, a community-service oriented step: a visit to Madhav Andha Ashram with modest material support and a one-hour engagement, followed by a brief report. The order emphasizes that the suggestion is “not punitive in nature,” cast as an exercise in civic empathy and awareness. Nonetheless, having been accepted, the Bench directs submission of a report within 15 days and states the appeal is allowed “subject to compliance” within one month.
Conditionality and textual nuance: Paragraph 15 suggests restoration “on submission of the report and affidavit,” whereas paragraph 16 simultaneously states that the writ petition “is restored” while making the appeal’s allowance subject to compliance. The more coherent reading is that restoration is effectively granted, conditioned as a consent-based, subsequent reporting requirement; the Court does not prescribe any penal consequence for non-compliance but signals an expectation of good-faith adherence to the counsel’s undertaking.

Impact and Forward-Looking Implications

Reinforcement of the Rafiq line of cases: The decision reaffirms that courts across procedural domains (including writs under Article 226) should prefer substantive adjudication where a litigant is not personally at fault. This will likely continue to guide restoration applications (MCCs) across the High Court’s benches.
Calibrated response to docket management: The judgment acknowledges court congestion concerns but demonstrates that docket discipline can co-exist with fairness by distinguishing willful default from bona fide lapses and by using non-monetary, non-punitive measures to promote responsibility.
Social audit as a judicial nudge: While not binding precedent on community service conditions, the order’s “test case” posture signals openness to restorative, community-oriented measures linked to procedural relief—especially when voluntarily accepted by counsel. The direction to circulate the order to government departments may seed policy-level thinking on community oversight of welfare institutions.
Ethical signaling to the Bar: The Court’s approach models a culture of empathy and public engagement. By inviting advocates (including Government Advocates) to participate, it encourages the Bar’s social role without imposing punitive costs, potentially fostering collaborative civic oversight.
Limits and cautions: The measure’s non-punitive and consent-based character is crucial. As a matter of principle, conditioning access to justice on extra-judicial acts could raise concerns if imposed coercively. The present decision navigates that line by stressing voluntariness and by framing the visit as a social audit “test case,” rather than as a penalty.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Dismissal for want of prosecution: When a case is dismissed because the party (or their counsel) fails to appear or to take required procedural steps. It is not a decision on merits.
Restoration/Recall (MCC in MPHC practice): A post-dismissal application asking the court to set aside the dismissal and restore the case, upon showing “sufficient cause” for the default.
Sufficient cause: A legal standard that asks whether the reason for non-compliance was genuine and reasonable. Courts apply it liberally when refusal would cause disproportionate injustice.
“Litigant should not suffer for counsel’s default”: A Supreme Court-endorsed principle (Rafiq v. Munshilal) that avoids penalizing a party for their lawyer’s bona fide mistake or absence.
Social audit (in this context): A civic-engagement exercise where responsible members of society (here, lawyers) visit and observe welfare institutions (orphanages, old-age homes, etc.), interact with residents, and report observations—creating informal community oversight that can surface issues and improve accountability.
Non-punitive restorative measure: A court-suggested step intended to foster responsibility or community benefit without imposing punishment or costs—here, accepted by counsel and treated as a constructive, consent-based add-on to a restoration order.

Key Takeaways

The Madhya Pradesh High Court restored a 14-year-old writ petition dismissed for default, holding that bona fide counsel lapses should not defeat substantive rights—especially in service matters involving promotions.
Relying on Rafiq v. Munshilal (AIR 1981 SC 1400), M.K. Prasad v. P. Arumugam (AIR 2001 SC 2497), and Dindayal Bansal (2007 (5) MPHT 470), the Court favored a liberal, justice-oriented approach to restoration.
In a first-of-its-kind “test case,” the Court introduced a voluntary, non-punitive “social audit” step—counsel’s visit to a mercy home with modest support and a report—thereby linking procedural restoration with community engagement.
The order nudges policy discourse by forwarding it to senior government departments and the Juvenile Justice Committee for “information and contemplation.”
Practically, the decision underscores that courts may combine leniency for bona fide defaults with constructive, community-centric undertakings, provided they remain voluntary and non-coercive.

Conclusion

Sushil Verma v. MP Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation is a significant reaffirmation of a humane procedural norm: courts should, where possible, decide on merits and not penalize a litigant for counsel’s bona fide lapse. The Division Bench’s decision sits squarely within the Rafiq line, while adding a novel, socially constructive dimension—an experimental “social audit” step accepted by counsel and linked to restoration. The judgment’s dual message is clear: procedural justice should be compassionate and practical, and the legal community can meaningfully contribute to social oversight without compromising adjudicative neutrality. If adopted with care, this restorative idiom could enrich judicial practice, balance docket discipline with fairness, and catalyze community involvement in safeguarding the welfare of vulnerable populations.