JUDGMENT :

K.R. Surana, J.

Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Payeng, learned standing counsel for the respondents No.2, 5 and 6, Ms. A. Borgohain, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Ms. U. Das, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.4.

2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the interlocutory order dated 01.10.2018, passed by the learned Foreigners' Tribunal No.3, Nalbari in F.T. Case No. 147/2018. By the said impugned order, the learned Tribunal had rejected two petitions filed by the petitioner bearing No.1101 and 1102 dated 10.08.2018. The petition No. 1101 was under the provisions Order VIII Rule 9 read with Order VIII Rule 1A(3) read with section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for allowing her to file her additional written statement and for producing additional documents. The petition No.1102 dated 10.08.2018 was filed under the provisions of Order XVIII Rule 17/17A for recalling and the examining witness.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a poor and illiterate lady. Through her engaged counsel she had filed he