THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PTITION NO.5813 OF 2010 & C.R.P.M.P.NO.2412 OF 2011 ON BEING MENTIONED DT.30.04.2011 Between: G.Madan Gopal ………..Petitioner Vs. G.Chintaji Rao and three others ……..Respondents O R D E R: Heard. The petitioner/plaintiff filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the correctness of the order dated 19.10.2010 passed in I.A.No.569 of 2010 in O.S.No.72 of 2003 on the file of IX Additional Chief Judge (FTC) City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein and whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C., seeking to amend the plaint by adding 46 items of immovable properties as ‘C’ schedule properties was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has not complied with the provision of Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice (for short ‘the Rules’). The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the dismissal of the said application, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and the court below ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to prove his case. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that since the non- compliance with rule 28 of the Rules is technical in nature, the court below ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner. Proviso to Rule 28 of the Rules reads as follows: “An application for amendment made under Order I Rule 103 , Order VI, Rule 17 or Order XXI shall also contain a prayer for all consequential amendments. The Presiding Officer shall reject the application if it is not in accordance with the law or these rules. Provided that verbal corrections may at any time be made in pleadings with permission of the Court.” Since the said proviso to Rule 28 of the Rules provides verbal correction and the property of the petitioner being valuable, this Court is inclined to give an opportunity to the petitioner to file a fresh application before the court below and on filing such an application, the court below is directed to consider the application and dispose of the same in accordance with law, after giving notice to both sides. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________ B.PRAKASH RAO J., Dt.30.04.2011 tjs.