A. N. DIVECHA, J. :, J.

( 1 ) IN our country which abounds in illiteracy and poverty on the part of its people, should an illiterate and poverty-stricken litigant be denied to knock the doors of justice simply because he could not approach the forum for the purpose within the prescribed period of limitation for want of funds ? This question in the main has cropped up in this petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India for challenging the correctness of the decision rendered by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at ahmedabad (the Tribunal for convenience) on 13th June 1986 in revision Application No. TEN. B. A. 101 of 1984. By its impugned decision, the tribunal rejected the revisional application of the petitioners as time barred without examining the merits of the case.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The petitioners moved the Mamlatdar and agricultural Lands Tribunal at Khambat (the first authority for convenience) with an application under Section 70 (b) of the bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands act, 1948 (the Act for brief) for declaration of their status as the tenants of one parcel of land bearing Survey No. 322 Paiki admeasuring

Click Here to Read the rest of this document