902 FA NO. 1246 OF 2006.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 902 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1246 OF 2006 Rajendra Narayanrao Gaikwad VERSUS The State Of Mah And Anr ... Mr. Kale Ajeet B., Advocate for Appellant Mr. S. B. Jadhav, AGP for Respondent/State Ms. Isha Deshpande h/for Mr. D. P. Palodkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9426 OF 2016 IN FA/1246/2006 Rajendra Narayanrao Gaikwad Died Thr Lrs Sharda And Ors VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Anr … Mr. Kale Ajeet B., Advocate for Appellant Mr. S. B. Jadhav, AGP for Respondent/State Ms. Isha Deshpande h/for Mr. D. P. Palodkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11728 OF 2017 IN FA/1246/2006 Rajendra Narayanrao Gaikwad (died) Thr Lrs Sharda And Ors VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Anr … Mr. Kale Ajeet B., Advocate for Appellant Mr. S. B. Jadhav, AGP for Respondent/State Ms. Isha Deshpande h/for Mr. D. P. Palodkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10333 OF 2009 IN FA/1246/2006 1 of 4 (( 2 )) 902 FA NO. 1246 OF 2006 Rajendra Narayanrao Gaikwad (died) Through Lrs Sachin Rajendra Gaikwad And Ors VERSUS The State Of Mah And Anr … Mr. Kale Ajeet B., Advocate for Appellant Mr. S. B. Jadhav, AGP for Respondent/State Ms. Isha Deshpande h/for Mr. D. P. Palodkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5916 OF 2025 IN FA/1246/2006 Rajendra Narayanrao Gaikwad (died) Through His Lrs And Others VERSUS The State Of Mah And Anr … Mr. Kale Ajeet B., Advocate for Appellant Mr. S. B. Jadhav, AGP for Respondent/State Ms. Isha Deshpande h/for Mr. D. P. Palodkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2 …. CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 10.12.2025 PER COURT :- CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5916 OF 2025 IN FA/1246/2006 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11728 OF 2017 IN FA/1246/2006 1. These applications are filed for amendment/modification of the claim title in the first appeal, particularly for the enhancement of amount of compensation. 2 of 4 (( 3 )) 902 FA NO. 1246 OF 2006 2. Heard learned advocates appearing for both sides. 3. In view of the law laid down in the authorities Amblya Kalya Mhatre (Dead) Through LRs. and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2011) 9 SCC 325 and State of Maharashtra Vs. Sitaram Narayan Patil and Others, reported in 2010 (2) Bom. C. R. 366, it is not necessary to claim the enhanced amount of compensation by specifically stating it in the application and therefore it is also not necessary to amend the claim accordingly. 4. Considering the ratio laid down in the authorities cited above, the applications deserve to be disposed of. The applications are disposed of accordingly. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9426 OF 2016 IN FA/1246/2006 1. This application is for permission to produce the additional evidence. 2. During the course of arguments, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the sale instances are relevant and deserve to be considered along with the judgment in L.A.R. No.34 of 2002. 3. It is well settled that an application for production of additional evidence has to be considered while finally deciding the appeal on 3 of 4 (( 4 )) 902 FA NO. 1246 OF 2006 merits. The application, therefore, deserves to be disposed of with clarification that at the time of final arguments, both sides may argue and point out whether the document is relevant, admissible and necessary for the final adjudication of the appeal. The application is disposed of. . List the appeal on 11.12.2025 at 02:30 p.m. for final argument. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] HRJadhav 4 of 4