IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revison No.6769 of 2009 Date of decision:04.02.2010. Mahavir Singh ...Petitioner Versus Confed, Kaithal and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The impugned order is apparently harsh in character. Though there is no dispute that the plaintiff – petitioner did not pay up the costs (of Rs.200/-) imposed upon him on the preceding date for adjournment, the dismissal of the suit under Section 35-B of the C.P.C. for want of payment of cost is too drastic. Though the provisions of Section 35-B of the C.P.C. do conceptualize dismissal of a suit if the amount of costs is not paid up, the Civil Courts must proceed into the matter at a lesser pace. In such an eventuality, the grant of little indulgence for the payment of the costs would be more acceptable at law. This would be particularly so when an averment was made at the time of motion hearing (before a Coordinate Bench (Hemant Gupta, J.) of this Court) that the plaintiff – petitioner is otherwise not to examine any witness and that he is prepared to pay up the costs of adjournment and also to compensate the respondents herein for the inconvenience caused thereby. In the light of the aforementioned discussion, the petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order dated 07.11.2009 shall stand set aside, subject to the payment of Rs.2,000/- as costs. The parties, through their learned counsel, are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 16.02.2010. February 04, 2010 (S.D.ANAND) vinod* JUDGE