JUDGMENT 1. - These two Civil Revisions are directed against the order of learned Munsif Magistrate (North) Kota dated 16th July, 1982. Both the revisions are disposed of by a single order as identical question arises in both the cases except that they relate to two different shops. 2. The defendant moved an application for setting aside the ex parte order against him. The plaintiff opposed the application and while dismissing the said application, the trial court fixed Rs. 50/- as cost by order dated 13-1-82. The amount of cost was not paid on the next date. The defendant then gave the amount of cost on 13-7-82 which was accepted by the counsel for the plaintiff under protest. The trial court by its impugned order held that the amount of cost of Rs. 50/- fixed in the order dated 13-1-82 was not paid in time and as such it held that the defendant was not entitled to take part in the subsequent proceedings in the suit. 3. After having heard learned counsel for both the parties, I am clearly of the opinion that the order of the learned trial court is absolutely wrong and illegal. The imposition of cost of Rs. 50/- on 13-1-1982 was merely on account of the dismissal of the application filed by the defendant for setting aside the ex parte order. The court did not base that order u/s 35-B, Civil Procedure Code. Section 35-B itself lays down that if a party to the suit (a) fails to take the step which he was required by or under this Code to take on that date, or (b) obtains an adjournment for taking such step or for producing evidence or on any other ground. the Court may, for reasons to be recorded, 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- (a) the suit by the plaintiff, where the plaintiff was ordered to pay such costs; (b) the defence by the defendant, where the defendant was ordered to pay such costs. 4. 4. I am clearly of the opinion that no such direction as contained in Section 35-B, C P.C. was contemplated or given while passing the order dated 13-1-1982. The award of costs of Rs. 50/- in that order was merely on account of dismissal of the application filed by the defendant. 5. In view of these circumstances, the order of the learned trial court dated 16-7-82 is set aside and the defendant petitioner is allowed to take part in the subsequent proceedings in the suit. It is however, made clear that this would not permit the defendant petitioner to file any written statement as application for setting aside ex parte order has already been dismissed and the defendant petitioner has not challenged that order. *******