( 1 ) IT is a settled principle of law in view of the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Rafig and Another v. Munshilal and Another reported in AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1400 that no litigant should suffer or should be penalised on account of default on the part of his advocate, and yet this petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India reflects the suffering of the petitioner on account of default of appearances on the part of his Advocate before the Gujarat revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad presumably on account of his professional preoccupation in this Court.

( 2 ) BY means of this petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has questioned the correctness of the decision rendered by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal ahmedabad (the Tribunal for convenience) on 4th December 1987 in restoration Application No. TEN D. A. 99 of 1987. Thereby the Tribunal rejected the petitioners Restoration Application against its decision rendered on 27th July 1987 in Restoration Application No. TEN d. A. 1400 of 1986.

( 3 ) THE fact giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The petitioner had to face the proceedings under the gujart A