1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR First Appeal No. 485 /1990 (Digamber Yadaorao Punde & others VERSUS Special L.A.O. & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri N.S. Bhattad, counsel for the appellants. Shri A.S. Sonare, A.G.P. for the respondents. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : AUGUST 14, 2009. C.A.NO. 138/2008, 1286/1999 & 14/1998. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By Civil Application No.138/2008, the applicants- appellants are seeking permission to bring new facts on record though they are not specifically brought on record through the evidence of the appellants. The applicants-appellants also desire to claim the compensation for the plot @ Rs.18/- per Square Feet though the same was not specifically prayed in the reference Court. The proposed amendment changes the nature of the proceedings and also takes the State of Maharashtra by surprise. The amendment application cannot be allowed at this juncture to fill up the lacuna in the case. 2 By Civil Application No.1286/1999, the applicants seek to amend the claim petition by claiming compensation for the Gadhi also. The applicants also desire to place the report of the Expert Valuer which according to the appellants, shows the valuation of the Gadhi. The contents of the application and the proposed amendment are an after thought. The applicants ought to have been diligent and ought to have claimed the compensation for the Gadhi before the reference Court only. The appellants are trying to improve their case at the appellate stage and such applications cannot be granted, specially in land acquisition proceedings when the parties have enough opportunity to tender the best possible evidence before the reference Court only. Similarly, Civil Application No.14/1998 cannot be granted for the reasons which are stated hereinabove. This application also cannot be granted in view of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the appellants, who seek to produce additional evidence on record have not proved and established that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within their knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by them at the time when the matter was considered by the reference Court. 3 All the three civil applications are, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE APTE