C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 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. ( 4 ) THE prayer in the petition filed by the revision petitioners reads as follows:"for the reasons and grounds stated in the annexed affidavit it is therefore prayed that this Hon ble Court may be pleased to allow the petition permitting petitioners causing amendment as stated in the affidavit in the body of the plaint as well as in the suit schedule appended to the plaint with all consequential amendments wherever it is necessary and pass such other order or orders as this I lonourable Court deem think fit and proper in the circumstances of the case for the purpose of effective determination of the real controversies in the subject-matter of the suit in the ends of justice. "strictly speaking, the above prayer is not in accordance with Rule 54 of the Civil Rules of Practice, 1980, which reads:"except where otherwise provided by these Rules or any law for the lime being in force, and Interlocutory Application shall state the provision of law under which it is made and the order prayed for or relief sought in clear and precise terms. The application shall be signed by the applicant or his Advocate, who shall enter the date on which such signature is made. Every application in contravention of this rule shall be returned for amendment or rejected. The application shall be signed by the applicant or his Advocate, who shall enter the date on which such signature is made. Every application in contravention of this rule shall be returned for amendment or rejected. " (Emphasis supplied)OBVIOUSLY because the prayer in the petition of revision petitioners is not in conformity with the above Rule and since the prayer in the petition is to permit all consequential amendments wherever necessary , the learned Trial Judge must have directed the revision petitioners to file the consequential amendments by 14-12-2004. Revision petitioners admittedly failed to comply with the said order. ( 5 ) THEREFORE, the learned Trial Judge by dismissing the petition did not commit any error, more so because the actual amendments sought are not incorporated in the petition. The petition should precisely state that actual amendments sought. If the revision petitioners wanted to confine the amendments sought and did not want any consequential amendments wherever necessary , they should have filed menu (sic memo) to that effect and they should have complied with the order of the Court. It is well known that non-compliance with the directions given by the Court entails dismissal of the petition. Therefore, I find no grounds to interfere with the order under revision. ( 6 ) HENCE, the civil revision petition is dismissed. However the petitioners are at liberty to file a fresh application for amendment duly stating the actual amendments soght. No costs.