MOKILI VEERANNA Vs. DANALA MALA KONDAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the petition seeking certain amendments to the plaint filed by the revision petitioners came up for hearing before the learned Trial Judge, he directed the petitioners to give the particulars of the amendments sought. Since the petitioners failed to furnish the particulars of the amendments sought, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the petition. Hence, this revision.

(2.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners is that since petitioners are not seeking any amendment other than those mentioned in Para 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Trial Court was in error in dismissing the petition. Placing reliance on Varanasi Madhava Rao v. Narayunsetti Govind Rajulu and others, 1999 (6) ALD 194 - 1999 (6) ALT 605, he contends that non-compliance with Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice, 1980, which is a technical Rule, docs not entail dismissal of the petition.

(3.) No representation on behalf of the respondents.