1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 2436/2006 Tukaram Sakharam Dhurve, thr. Lrs Premsingh Tukaram Dhurve and Ors. ..vs.. Corporation of the City of Nagpur, thr. Its Municipal Commissioner and Ors. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Kanugo, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Puranik, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. Fulzele, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 2 and 3. CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED : 5 th September, 2008 1. Though there is no clear justification placed on record by the Corporation to set aside the impugned ex parte judgment/decree passed on 27.09.1995 in Regular Civil Suit No. 955/1994, yet considering the fact that there is dispute with regard to the ownership and title of the land bearing Khasra No. 80/02, situated at Wadpakad, Sadar, adjacent to Mangalwari Bazar, Nagpur admeasuring 0.20 Acre which alleged to have been granted to the Nagpur Municipal Corporation. The petitioner/plaintiff claims to be the owner of the land having purchased some time in the year 1962 but as his name was not mutated in the Nagpur Municipal Corporation record, therefore, filed the suit for declaration. 2 2. In my view, the fact that the plaintiff/petitioner has filed suit for declaration itself need detail enquiry and trial. Merely because for some unknown reason, the officer/clerk of the respondent-Corporation unable to maintain the Court diary or not attended the proceeding after 18.09.1995 that resulted into the ex pare decree immediately on 27.09.1995, cannot be taken the reason to overlook the issue that the property belongs to the NMC or the State or not. It is, therefore, desirable that the parties and/or plaintiff must establish his title over the public property. In the interest of justice, it is necessary that by proper adjudication, the suit be disposed of on merit, after hearing both the parties. 3. Taking all these into account and as by order dated 19.11.2007, the Court has already granted application and set aside the ex parte judgment, the discretion so exercised need no interference. The petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE kahale