A.K. Mathur, J. - (1.) Petitioner has Filed this writ petition against the order of Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner dated 23rd August, 1993. The appeals of the petitioner under the Urban Land Ceiling Act were dismissed for non-appearance of the counsel on 21st April, 1992. Thereafter the petitioner moved an application for restoration and that loo was dismissed in default on 19,1.93 for non-appearance of the counsel for the petitioner. Then again petitioner filed second restoration application which came to be decided by the Divisional Commissioner who by his order dated 23rd August, 1993 has dismissed the same. Aggrieved against this order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
(2.) It is true that the appeals of petitioner under Section 33 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act were dismissed in default on 12.4.1992 and the applications for restoration were also dismissed for non prosecution and again the second restoration applications which came to be decided by the order of Divisional Commissioner dated 23rd August, 1993 were also dismissed. The appeals were dismissed by invoking the Order 41 Rule 17 C.P.C. that when the appellant himself is not present, there is no option but to dismiss the case in default without going to the merits. It is no doubt true that the counsel for the petitioner was at fault and on account of his fault those appeals and also the restoration applications were dismissed. However, on account of the fault of the counsel, it will not be proper to punish the litigant, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it will be fair and just to set aside this order dated 23rd August, 1993 on payment of a cost by the petitioner to the respondent which is quantified a sum of Rs. 1,000/-. In case the petitioner pays a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to the State then the appeals of the petitioner may be restored back and may be heard & disposed of on merits. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Petition allowed.;