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. Impose costs as a precondition for allowing further prosecution.
• B. Dismiss the suit.
• C. Proceed with the suit without imposing any condition.
• D. Grant adjournment as a matter of right.

Hint:

Whenever Section 35B CPC appears in an exam, immediately associate it with "Costs for causing delay" and "condition for further prosecution."

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Section 35B CPC can be understood by looking at why it was added and exactly what tool it gives the court, rather than treating it as a general punishment provision.

1. The problem it addresses: before this provision, parties could repeatedly fail to take steps required by the court, filings, appearances, compliance with directions, without facing any real consequence, which slowed down civil litigation.
2. The tool it creates: the section allows the court to order the defaulting party to pay costs to the other side for causing the delay, and to make payment of those costs a condition that must be satisfied before that party is allowed to continue prosecuting the suit or its defence.
3. What it does not do: it does not direct automatic dismissal of the suit for the default, it does not permit the case to simply continue as if nothing happened, and it does not create any right to adjournment, adjournments remain a matter for the court's discretion.

Matching this against the four options shows that dismissal, unconditional continuation, and adjournment as a right are all outside what the section actually does; only the costs-as-precondition mechanism matches.

The correct answer is impose costs as a precondition for allowing further prosecution.

Answer 2

The two options most likely to be confused here are dismiss the suit and impose costs as a precondition, since both look like a serious consequence of default. Separating these, and then handling the remaining two options, gives the answer.

1. Dismissal vs. costs-with-condition: dismissal ends the suit altogether and is a drastic step generally reserved for specific defaults under separate provisions of the CPC. Section 35B, by contrast, is a lighter, calibrated remedy, it lets the suit continue, but only once the defaulting party pays costs for the delay caused.
2. Proceeding without any condition: this option effectively describes what the law looked like before Section 35B was introduced, no real consequence for default. Since the section was inserted specifically to change that position, this option describes the opposite of current law.
3. Adjournment as a matter of right: granting an adjournment as an entitlement would reward the very delay that Section 35B seeks to discourage. Courts retain discretion over adjournments, and defaults typically attract costs rather than an automatic right to more time.
4. Costs as a precondition: once the harsher option and the two options describing no real consequence are set aside, what remains is the calibrated remedy Section 35B actually creates, a costs order that conditions further prosecution.

The provision sits between doing nothing and dismissing the suit, it lets the case continue but only after the defaulting party bears the cost of the delay.

So the correct answer is impose costs as a precondition for allowing further prosecution.