CR No.560 of 2010 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.560 of 2010 Date of decision: 14.05.2010 Smt.Surjit Kaur ..Petitioner Versus O.P.Aggarwal and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.Munish Goel, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Amrainder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed against the order whereby the application under Order 39 Rule 2-A has been dismissed against the respondents No.1 and 3. Learned counsel states that actually the petitioner had filed the process fee but the same was inadvertently put in another file by the Court staff and that is why the summons could not be issued to the respondents No.1 and 3. None has appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 and 3 to oppose this petition. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has not disputed this fact. In these circumstances, in my considered opinion, the application could not have been dismissed for want of prosecution and the learned Court should have granted one more opportunity to the petitioner to serve the respondents. In these circumstances, this petition is allowed. The impugned order insomuch as it dismisses the application against the respondents No.1 and 3 for want of CR No.560 of 2010 ::2:: prosecution is set aside and the learned Trial Court is directed to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to serve the said respondents. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE May 14, 2010 sukhpreet