adjournment for taking such step or for producing evidence or on any other ground, the course left to the Court is by recording reasons, the Court may make an order requiring such party to pay to the other party such costs as would, in the opinion of the Court, be reasonably sufficient to reimburse the other party in respect of the expenses incurred by him in attending the Court on that date, and payment of such costs, on the date next following the date of such order, shall be a condition precedent to the further prosecution of the suit by the plaintiff or defence by the defendant as the case may be. The petitioner may be right in saying that the order passed by the lower Court falls within the ambit of Section 35-B CPC. But, however, it appears that it was not made clear that such an order was passed under Section 35B-2 CPC and costs were imposed in usual course. Whenever the Court is inclined to impose costs under Section 35-B (2) of CPC, it must be made clear that an order is passed under Section 35-B (2) of CPC, which has severe consequences. The words that “for the reasons to be recorded” in Section 35-B makes it clear that specific reasons have to be assigned for imposing costs under Section 35-B CPC. Then an order under Section 35-B could be passed only after recording reasons for such an order. Therefore, each and every order passed imposing costs can not be brought within the ambit of Section 35-B CPC. Therefore, the application filed by the respondent under Order 9, Rule 9 CPC is maintainable. It is not the case of the petitioners that an order was passed by the lower Court under Section 35B of CPC, after recording reasons as required thereunder and the case was posted for compliance of such order on 24.9.2008. The lower Court instead of dismissing the suit it appears that ought to have passed an order as required under sub-section 1 of Section 35B of CPC and had the respondent failed to comply such order on the next following the date of such order. Clause (a)
