Question

Under Section 35B of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, where a party fails to take a step required by the court on the date fixed, the court may:

• A. Grant adjournment as a matter of right.
• B. Dismiss the suit.
• C. Impose costs on the defaulting party.
• D. Proceed ex-parte against the defaulting party.

Hint:

Think of Section 35B as the "delay penalty." If you aren't ready with your required steps on the scheduled date, the court hits your pocketbook with costs, not necessarily the case itself!

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Section 35B can be tested in two parts: confirming what triggers it, and then matching that trigger to the consequence the section actually attaches.

Test 1, the trigger:
The section is triggered when a party fails to take a step required by the court on a date fixed for that step, a narrower and less drastic circumstance than failing to appear at all or losing the case on its merits.

Test 2, the consequence:
For this specific trigger, the section authorises the court to impose costs on the defaulting party, payable to the other side, as a financial deterrent against delay. Dismissing the suit and proceeding ex-parte are consequences tied to different, more serious defaults under other provisions, and treating adjournment as an automatic right does not appear in the section at all.

Conclusion:
Matching the narrow trigger of Section 35B to its actual consequence leaves only the imposition of costs as correct.

\[ \boxed{\text{Impose costs on the defaulting party.}} \]

Answer 2

Section 35B exists to discourage parties from dragging out litigation through avoidable delay, while still keeping the case alive so it can be resolved on its merits. Testing each option against that purpose shows which one the section is actually built to deliver.

1. Grant adjournment as a matter of right: Giving the defaulting party more time as an automatic entitlement would reward the very delay the section is meant to discourage.
2. Dismiss the suit: Ending the case entirely over a single missed procedural step goes far beyond a proportionate deterrent and would frustrate the underlying dispute's resolution on the merits.
3. Impose costs on the defaulting party: A costs order creates a real, proportionate financial disincentive against delay while allowing the suit itself to continue toward a decision on the merits, which is exactly the balance between discipline and fairness that the section is designed to achieve.
4. Proceed ex-parte against the defaulting party: This is a more severe consequence reserved for a party's failure to appear at all, not for the narrower default of missing a procedural step.

Only a costs order strikes the proportionate balance between discouraging delay and allowing the case to proceed, which is the purpose Section 35B serves.

Therefore, the correct answer is Impose costs on the defaulting party.