IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5543 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision 12.10.2009 Guddi Devi and others ...... Petitioners VERSUS Surjeet Singh and others ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Satbir Rathore, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Vandana Malhotra and Mr.M.B.Jain, Advocates, for the respondent No.3-Insurance Company. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Mr.M.B.Jain, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-Insurance Company. This petition is directed against the order dated 28.05.2009, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula (herein referred as 'the Tribunal') dismissing the claim petition against respondent No.3- Insurance Company for the reasons that the petitioners-claimants (herein referred as 'the petitioners') could not deposit the summons for the service of the Company. Heard. The Order 5 Rule 2 of the Code does not issue any mandate to the petitioners to deposit the summons for the service but the said Rule is only directory in nature. As such, the Tribunal took wrong note of the fact that the petitioners were bound to furnish the summons for service. Resultantly, this petition is accepted; the impugned order is set aside and the case is sent back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision according to law. However, Mr.M.B.Jain, Advocate, is directed to inform respondent No.3 about the pendency of the claim petition before the Tribunal. The. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on the date fixed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 12.10.2009 mamta-II