JUDGMENT 1. - This petition is directed against order dated 17.3.12 passed by the Additional District Judge(F.T.) No.2, Jodhpur Metropolitan City in Civil Original Case No.117/04, whereby an application preferred on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff under Section 35B read with Section 151 CPC has been allowed and accordingly, further prosecution of the defence by the petitioner-defendant stands closed. 2. The relevant facts are that respondent-plaintiff instituted a suit for possession of a house situated at plot no.32, Central School Scheme, Jodhpur against the petitioner herein. The suit is being contested by the petitioner by filing a written statement thereto. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner preferred an application under Order 13, Rule 3 CPC. After due consideration, the application was rejected by the court below vide order dated 21.11.11 and costs quantified at Rs. 3,000/- was imposed observing that the application preferred is frivolous and appears to have been made to delay the proceedings. 3. The petitioner failed to make payment of the costs to the respondent-plaintiff even after opportunities being granted by the court and therefore, the respondent-plaintiff preferred an application under Section 35B read with Section 151 CPC for closure of the further prosecution of defence by the petitioner-defendant. The court below found that in terms of provisions of Section 35B, the payment of costs, on the next following date of the order passed by the court imposing the costs, is condition precedent for further prosecution of defence by the defendant and therefore, on account of non payment of costs, the defence of the defendant deserves to be closed. Accordingly, by the order impugned, the defence of the petitioner-defendant stands closed and he has been debarred from participating in further proceedings of the suit. Hence, this petition. 4. It is to be noticed that on 22.3.12, while issuing show cause notices to the respondent, on the undertaking given on behalf of the petitioner in terms that the costs of Rs. 3,000/- in pursuance of order dated 21.11.11 passed by the trial court will be deposited in the trial court within one week, an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner by this court in the following terms: "Upon deposit of the said cost of Rs. 3,000/-, the operation of the order dated 17/3/2012 passed in Civil Original Case No. 177/2004 (R.C. Sharma v. Renuka Chakravati) shall remain stayed." 5. 3,000/-, the operation of the order dated 17/3/2012 passed in Civil Original Case No. 177/2004 (R.C. Sharma v. Renuka Chakravati) shall remain stayed." 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the court below has seriously erred in invoking the provisions of Section 35-B of CPC. Learned counsel urged that the costs imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 17.3.11 was not in terms of the provisions of Section 35B rather, the costs imposed was only compensatory and therefore, the defence of the petitioner was not open to be closed for non payment of costs. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supporting the order passed by the court below submitted that the costs was imposed on account of the frivolous application being made by the petitioner and for the unnecessary delay caused in the proceedings of the suit and therefore, the trial court was absolutely justified in allowing the application preferred by the respondent-plaintiff keeping in view the mandate of provisions of Section 35B of the Act. Learned counsel submitted that the order impugned does not suffer from any jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of it supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 8. The controversy involved in the matter rolls around provisions of Section 35 B of CPC, which reads as under: "35B. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 8. The controversy involved in the matter rolls around provisions of Section 35 B of CPC, which reads as under: "35B. Costs for causing delay.-(1) If, on any date fixed for hearing of a suit or for taking any step therein, 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 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 next date 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. Explanation.- Where separate defences have been raised by the defendants or groups of defendants, payment of such costs shall be a condition precedent to the further prosecution of the defence by such defendants or groups of defendants as have been ordered by the Court to pay such costs. (2) The costs, ordered to be paid under sub-section(1), shall not, if paid, be included in the costs awarded in the decree passed in the suit; but, if such costs are not paid, a separate order shall be drawn up indicating the amount of such costs and the names and addresses of the persons by whom such costs are payable and the order so drawn up shall be executable against such persons." 9. A bare perusal of sub-section(1) of Section 35B makes it abundantly clear that the costs in terms thereof could be imposed by the court for the reasons to be recorded on existence of either of two situations specifically enumerated therein. A bare perusal of sub-section(1) of Section 35B makes it abundantly clear that the costs in terms thereof could be imposed by the court for the reasons to be recorded on existence of either of two situations specifically enumerated therein. It is pertinent to note that on 17.3.11 the matter was fixed for plaintiff evidence and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner-defendant failed to take steps which was required by or under the Code to be taken on that date. It is also not the case that the petitioner sought adjournment for taking the steps or for producing evidence or any other ground. Indisputably, the costs was imposed only for the reason that application preferred by the petitioner under Order 13, Rule 3 CPC was found to be frivolous and caused delay in the proceedings of the suit. In considered opinion of this court, the compensatory costs awarded by the court while rejecting the application preferred under Order 13, Rule 3 , in no manner falls within the ambit of Section 35B of CPC and therefore, invoking the provisions contained therein, the petitioner-defendant could not have been debarred from further prosecution of the defence. In this view of the order impugned passed by the court below apparently suffers from jurisdictional error and therefore, deserves to be set aside. 10. This court is informed that the petitioner has already deposited the costs with the trial court pursuant to the interim order passed by this court and therefore, even the reason for which the petitioner was debarred from further prosecution of the defence in the suit, does not survive. 11. In view of the discussion above, the petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 17.3.12 passed by the court below is set aside. The application preferred by the respondent-plaintiff under Section 35B read with Section 151 CPC is rejected. However,the costs deposited by the petitioner in terms of the interim order passed by this court is directed to be paid to the respondent-defendant. 12. No order as to costs.Petition Allowed. *******