THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH C.R.P.Nos.4387 and 4513 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: In both these civil revision petitions, the parties are one and the same. Hence, they are being taken up together for disposal by way of common order. C.R.P.No.4387 of 2011 is filed against the common order, dated 06-06-2011, passed in I.A.No.185 of 2011 in I.A.No.99 of 2010 in O.S.No.234 of 2007 on the file of the V Additional District Judge (FTC), Guntur, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein seeking to restore I.A.No.99 of 2010 in O.S.No.234 of 2007 by setting aside the order of dismissal, dated 17-02-2011, was dismissed. C.R.P.No.4513 of 2011 is filed against the common order, dated 06-06-2011, passed in I.A.No.186 of 2011 in I.A.No.100 of 2010 in O.S.No.234 of 2007 on the file of the V Additional District Judge (FTC), Guntur, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein seeking to restore I.A.No.100 of 2010 in O.S.No.234 of 2007 by setting aside the order of dismissal, dated 17-02-2011, was dismissed. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.234 of 2007 on the file of the V Additional District Judge (FTC), Guntur, for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,09,03,035/-. After filing written statement, issues were framed and the matter was posted for trial. It is stated that on 02-04- 2009, the petitioner/plaintiff was cross-examined by the counsel for the respondent, but the same could not be concluded on that day and he has left for USA on 06-04-2009 and returned to India on 23-10-2009. Meanwhile, on 07-07-2009, the suit was dismissed, as there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff. It is stated that on 07-07- 2009, the Advocates boycotted the Court proceedings. Immediately, after returning from U.S.A., the petitioner filed I.A.Nos.99 and 100 of 2010 for restoration of the suit to its file and condoning the delay in filing the restoration petition. Both the applications were allowed by order, dated 07-02-2011 subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing costs of Rs.500/- before the District Legal Services Authority, Guntur, and on further payment of costs of Rs.500/- to the defendant on or before 17-02-2011, failing which the petitions would stand dismissed. It is stated that the counsel appearing for the petitioner met with an accident and, therefore, the petitioner could not deposit the costs as ordered by the trial court on 07-02-2011. Accordingly, I.A.Nos.99 and 100 of 2010 were dismissed for default by order, dated 17-02-2011. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.185 seeking to restore I.A.No.99 of 2010 in O.S.No.234 of 2007 by setting aside the order of dismissal, dated 17-02-2011 and I.A.No.186 of 2011 to restore I.A.No.100 of 2010 in O.S.No.234 of 2007 by setting aside the order of dismissal, dated 17-02-2011. Both the said applications were dismissed by the common order, dated 06-06-2011, by observing as follows:- “Coming to the facts of the present matter I.A.99/10 is ordered to be allowed on compliance of the condition made by the court with regard to the payment of costs and the case squarely falls within the ambit of Sec.35-B of CPC order 9 CPC and is absolutely not applicable to the present case. Where a petition is dismissed for non compliance of the order passed by the court with respect to payment of costs the remedy for the aggrieved party is to file an application either U/s.151 CPC, or to go for revision but not otherwise. The petitions filed by the petitioner are misconceived and are not maintainable under law. Due to the aforesaid discussion without going into the merits , these interlocutory applications are liable to be dismissed. In the result, these interlocutory applications are dismissed without costs.” I am of the opinion that in the instant case, Section 35-B of CPC has no application, as it applies for imposition of costs payable to other side for adjourning the matter. However, as both I.A.Nos.99 and 100 of 2010 were dismissed for default for non-compliance of the order, dated 07- 02-2011, the petitioner ought to have filed the said applications under Section 151 CPC. Therefore, the court below ought not to have dismissed the said applications on technical grounds and ought to have allowed on certain terms. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 06-06-2011 and I.A.No.185 of 2011 and I.A.No.186 of 2011 in O.S.No.234 of 2007 shall stand allowed, subject to the condition of the petitioner paying costs of Rs.5,000/- to the counsel appearing for the respondent before this Court and another sum of Rs.5,000/- to the counsel appearing for the respondent before the court below within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ___________ 23-12-2012 Prv