RAJENDRA M MAVANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decision rendered by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad (the Tribunal for convenience) on 17th April 1996 in Restoration Application No. TEN. D.S. 2 of 1996 is under challenge in this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. By its impugned decision, the Tribunal rejected the application for restoration of Revision Application No. TEN. B.S. 234 of 1990 rejected for default of appearance by its decision rendered on 1st November 1995.

(2.) It is not necessary to set out in detail the facts giving rise to this petition. It is sufficient to note that the present petitioner preferred the aforesaid revisional application before the Tribunal and it came to be rejected for default of appearance by its decision rendered on 1st November 1995. Its copy is at Annexure A to this petition. The petitioner moved the Tribunal for its restoration to file. A copy of the application of the petitioner in that regard is at Annexure B to this petition. It came to be registered as Restoration Application No. TEN. D.S. 2 of 1996. By its decision rendered on 17th April 1996 in the aforesaid restoration application, the Tribunal rejected it. Its copy is at Annexure D to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner has thereupon approached this Court by means of this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for questioning its correctness.

(3.) The ground given for default of appearance on the part of the learned Advocate for the petitioner before the Tribunal was that he informed the petitioner about the date of hearing but the petitioner did not turn up. The learned Advocate for the petitioner before the Tribunal did not appear before it only on the ground that the petitioner did not turn up in response to the intimation given to him with respect to the hearing of the revisional application. I think the learned Advocate was not justified in not appearing before the Tribunal. He ought to have appeared before the Tribunal and should have reported no instructions from the petitioner. It is, however, a settled principle of law that no litigant should be let down on account of default, inaction or omission on the part of his advocate in view of the binding ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq and Anr. v. Munshilal and Anr., reported in AIR 1981 SC 1400.