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

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
Section 35B of the CPC is a disciplinary provision designed to discourage unnecessary delays by parties in conducting their cases, thereby ensuring the speedy trial of suits.

Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
- Section 35B provides that if any party to a suit fails to take a step which they were required to take by the court on a date fixed, the court may impose "costs" upon such party.
- These costs are to be paid to the other party to compensate them for the delay and the wasted time of the court.
- The objective is not to penalize the party by dismissal, but to ensure procedural compliance through financial deterrents.

Step 3: Final Answer:
The court is empowered to impose costs for such procedural delays. Option (C) is the correct answer.

Answer 2

Section 35B of the CPC addresses what happens when a party fails to take a step the court required on a fixed date. The question asks what the court may do in that situation, and each option needs to be measured against what the section actually authorises.

1. Grant adjournment as a matter of right: Section 35B is not about granting the defaulting party more time as an entitlement. If anything, the section is aimed at discouraging delay, so treating an adjournment as an automatic right for the very party that caused the default runs against the purpose of the provision.
2. Dismiss the suit: Dismissal is a far more drastic consequence than what Section 35B contemplates for a single procedural default. The section is a disciplinary tool aimed at deterring delay through costs, not a mechanism for ending the suit outright.
3. Impose costs on the defaulting party: Section 35B specifically empowers the court to order the defaulting party to pay costs to the other side when a required step is not taken on the fixed date. This financial consequence is precisely the remedy the section provides.
4. Proceed ex-parte against the defaulting party: Proceeding ex-parte is a distinct remedy tied to a party's failure to appear, governed by separate provisions of the Code, not the specific consequence Section 35B attaches to a missed procedural step.

Only the imposition of costs matches what Section 35B actually authorises for a party's failure to take a required step on the date fixed.

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