ORDER Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. - The appellant filed a suit for declaration and injunction claiming that he was owner of the suit property. On 4.1.1982, case was adjourned for filing replication to 9.2.1982 subject to payment of Rs. 10/- as costs. On subsequent date, neither the appellant nor his counsel appeared and the costs were also not tendered. Case was adjourned to 19.2.1992 when the trial court dismissed the suit under Section 35-B of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellant preferred an appeal which was held to be not maintainable. The lower appellate court held that since no appeal was provided against an order passed under Section 35-B of the Code of Civil Procedure, dismissing the suit on the ground of non-payment of costs, appeal was not maintainable. Hence, this second appeal. 2. Even though none appears for the appellant, I have perused the impugned judgments of the courts below. I will assume that the order dismissing the suit for default in payment of costs is not decree and appeal against the same was not maintainable. In view of prayer of the appellant in para 7(c) of the grounds of appeal, this petition is treated as revision. 3. Order dated 4.1.1982 for payment of Rs. 10/- as costs was for granting adjournment for filing replication. On the adjourned date, costs were not paid and case was again adjourned. On that date, costs were offered but were not accepted. A Full Bench of this court held in Prem Sagar and others v. Phul Chand and others, AIR 1983 P&H 385 if on the date next following the date of order directing payment of costs, question of costs is not raised by either party or taken notice of by the Court, it cannot be said that thereafter on all or any subsequent date the same can be resuscitated or that Section 35-B would continue to apply with all its rigour. There will be implied waiver of the right of the party entitled to costs and on subsequent dates, it will not be open to the parties to reopen the issue at their will and seek barring of further prosecution of the suit. In view of this judgment for non-payment of costs on 9.2.1982 Section 35-B could have been applied on that date and not thereafter. Filing of the application subsequently was not permissible. In view of this judgment for non-payment of costs on 9.2.1982 Section 35-B could have been applied on that date and not thereafter. Filing of the application subsequently was not permissible. Dismissal of the suit on the said application cannot be sustained. 4. For the above reasons, this appeal petition is allowed. The impugned order dismissing the suit for non-payment of costs is set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial court for fresh decision in accordance with law. Appeal allowed.