Seven-Day Notice By Advocate To Client Not Required When "No Instructions" Pursis Is Filed: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bombay High Court Article 227 Interference In Landlord–Tenant Eviction Case
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Joymalya Bagchi has held that the requirement of giving seven days’ advance notice to a client before an advocate withdraws a vakalatnama, as contemplated under the Bombay High Court Appellate Side framework of 1960 and the Civil Manual, does not apply where the advocate merely files a pursis stating that he has no instructions from the client. Clarifying that such a pursis does not amount to withdrawal of authority, the Court set aside the High Court’s interference under Article 227 in a tenant’s challenge to an eviction decree, holding that the High Court could not reappreciate facts or substitute a plausible, well-reasoned appellate order.
The dispute arises from a civil suit filed by the landlord against the tenants seeking possession of the tenanted premises under Sections 16(1)(g) and 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Summons were served and, upon non-appearance, the suit initially proceeded ex parte against the defendants, before those orders were recalled on their applications and written statements were filed. During the trial, the defendants’ advocate moved for deletion of one defendant, which was rejected, and separately filed a pursis stating he had no instructions from his clients, annexing a prior letter sent to them. The plaintiff’s evidence was thereafter recorded and the suit was decreed.
In appeal under Section 34 of the 1999 Act, the tenants contended that they were denied a fair opportunity to contest the suit because, after the “no instructions” pursis, the court did not issue notice to them to engage another advocate and the procedure for withdrawal of vakalatnama under Clause 660(4) of the Civil Manual and Rule 8(4) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 was not followed. The appellate court examined these provisions, the notice and pursis, and the parties’ conduct, and dismissed the appeal. The tenants then invoked Articles 226/227 of the Constitution before the High Court, reiterating that they had been deprived of an opportunity to lead evidence owing to their advocate’s pursis and the alleged non-compliance with the prescribed withdrawal procedure.
The Court stated: “We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record carefully.” It noted that “[t]he only issue that fell for consideration of the High Court was whether, on account of defendants’ lawyer’s pursis, claiming ‘no instructions’, the trial court ought to have proceeded to decide the suit without ascertaining whether the defendants were duly informed about lawyer’s withdrawal from the case.”
On the scope of supervisory jurisdiction, the Court recalled that “judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari under Article 226, though they may be questioned in the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.” It further recorded that “[t]he power under Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. The power may be exercised in cases occasioning grave injustice or failure of justice such as when (i) the court or tribunal has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have, (ii) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have, such failure occasioning a failure of justice, and (iii) the jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner which tantamounts to overstepping the limits of jurisdiction.”
Explaining the effect of a “no instructions” pursis, the Court observed that “the procedure prescribed for withdrawal of a Vakalatnama is to put the litigant on notice to enable him to engage another counsel before the next date of hearing,” and that “[t]he object of the procedure is not to let parties seek adjournment and defer court proceedings.” It noted that “the counsel who represented the defendant had not withdrawn the Vakalatnama but had only claimed no instructions and along with the pursis had annexed letter sent to his client,” and that “if no instructions are provided by a litigant to his advocate, it is the fault of the litigant not of the advocate.”
Assessing the High Court’s interference, the Court held that “once the appellate court took into consideration all relevant aspects including the fact that pursis (Exh.42) did not seek withdrawal of the Vakalatnama, and withdrawal was not even permitted, there was no such jurisdictional error which warranted exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court without any justification went on to consider the procedure prescribed for withdrawal of Vakalatnama when neither withdrawal of Vakalatnama was permitted by the Trial Court nor the pursis prayed for its withdrawal. In such circumstances, the entire exercise of the High Court was misconceived,” adding that “the appellate court's order was not amenable to interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court clearly exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution in interfering with a well-reasoned order of the appellate court.”
The Court directed: “As we notice that before the High Court except the aforesaid point no other point was pressed, and no other point arises for our consideration in as much as the evidence led by the plaintiff went unrebutted, we deem it appropriate to allow this appeal and restore the order of the trial court as affirmed by the appellate court.”
“The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The order passed by the High Court dated 30.01.2023 is set aside. Writ Petition No. 4227 of 2021 shall stand dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rohit M. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Prashant R. Dahat, Adv. Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Adv. Mr. Puneet Yadav, Adv. Ms. Priya Mittal, Adv. Mr. Vasu Dev, Adv. Mr. Akshansh Gupta, Adv. Mr. T. R. B. Sivakumar, AOR
For the Respondents: For Respondent(s) : Mr. Satyajit A Desai, Adv. Mr. Amit K. Pathak, Adv. Mr. Shrirang R. Bhongade, Adv. Ms. Anagha S. Desai, AOR Mr. Sachin Singh, Adv. Mr. Pratik Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Parth Johri, Adv.
Case Title: Shri Digant v. M/s. P.D.T. Trading Co. & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1352
Case Number: Civil Appeal No(s). 13801/2025 @ SLP (C) No. 5813/2023
Bench: Justice Manoj Misra, Justice Joymalya Bagchi
