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 di