Judgment : BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, ACJ. (1.) This mandamus-appeal is at the instance of the unsuccessful writ- petitioners and is directed against an order dated 28th August, 2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship dismissed the writ- application filed by the appellants. (2.) The grievance of the appellants in the writ-application was that although they were the defendants in a proceeding under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to the Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to the Act), the summons sent to them did not accompany the copy of the application with annexure as provided in Rule 11 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993. (3.) The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Bank appeared before the Writ-Court and submitted that the complete copies of the application under Section 19 of the Act were served upon the petitioners advocate-on-record on March 31, 2009. (4.) In view of such submission made by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Bank, His Lordship dismissed the writ-application by observing that, at the most, the time to file reply would be reckoned from such date when the complete copies of the application were served and it would be open to the writ-petitioners to seek a reasonable extension of time for filing the reply. His Lordship, however, overruled the contention that the entire proceeding was vitiated for not serving the copy of the application along with the summons. Being dissatisfied, the writ-petitioners have come up with the present mandamus-appeal. (5.) Although the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants tried to convince us that the proceeding should be held to be vitiated for not serving the copy of the application along with annexure with the summons through Registered Post by the learned Registrar of the Tribunal as provided in Rule 11, we are not impressed by such submission. The Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 is a procedural Rule and Rule 11 being not couched in negative form nor there being any use of the word "must", the said provision must be held to be directory and not mandatory. If the Rule 11 is held to be directory, for non-compliance of the Rule, the entire proceeding cannot be vitiated and the defect can be cured by serving a copy of the application with the annexure even subsequently. If the Rule 11 is held to be directory, for non-compliance of the Rule, the entire proceeding cannot be vitiated and the defect can be cured by serving a copy of the application with the annexure even subsequently. However, it is rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge that in such a case, the time to file written statement would commence from the date of service of the copy. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants, however, disputed the fact that even subsequently any such copy of the application was served upon the learned advocate, as contended by the Bank, along with the annexure and according to him, the learned Trial Judge ought to have decided such question before dismissing the writ-application. It appears that the writ-application was disposed of without inviting the affidavit from the Bank. (6.) In such circumstances, to avoid unnecessary remand we direct the learned advocate for the Bank to serve a fresh copy of the application under Section 19 of the Act with the annexure upon the learned advocate appearing on behalf appellants in this Court by 7th December, 2009 and the time to file written statement in the main proceeding before the Tribunal would commence from the date of service of such copy. (7.) The appeal is, thus, disposed of with the above observation. In the facts and circumstances, there will be, however, no order as to costs.