JUDGMENT :

Kalyan Rai Surana, J.

1. 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 FT. 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 her written statement and had adduced evidence by examining witnesses. It is submitted that at the time of filing the written statement and evidence some vital points have been left out, which were not previously known to her. Moreover, some relevant and important documents prior and after 1971 were in custody of others and now the documents has been traced out by her. It is submitted that those documents could not be procured and produced at an earlier stage despite due diligence. It is also submitted that the citizenship of the petitioner is at stake and, as such, the petitioner had prayed for one opportunity to file additional written statement and to file additional documents in support of her stand. By referring to the documents mentioned in Petition No. 1101, it is submitted that the documents sought to be produced are (1) Registered sale deed dated 30.12.1962 in the name of the father of the petitioner, (2) Land revenue paying receipt in the name of the father of the petitioner, (3) Voters list of 1970, 1985, 1993, 2010, 2014 etc. in the name of the father of the petitioner, (4) Certificate issued by the village headman of Village-Banpora and (5) PAN Card in the name of the petitioner. It is submitted that in Petition No. 1102, the petitioner had specifically prayed for recalling and/or for re-examination of the petitioner to prove the documents which could not be produced despite due diligence of the petitioner at the time of tendering evidence in her support.

4. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied in the case of Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin & Anr., (2012) 8 SCC 148 as well as the case of Ram Kishan Vs. Harak Chand, (1999) 0 Supreme (Raj) 872 to project that if additional evidence left out in the trial stage can be allowed to be introduced by invoking the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, there is no reason for the learned Tribunal to deny such opportunity to the petitioner at the trial stage.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the documents annexed to the writ petition. It would be relevant to observed herein that in the order dated 19.12.2018, this Court had mentioned that it was not inclined to requisition records as the matter involves decision only on law points.

6. As per the statements made in the Petition No. 1101, the stand of the petitioner is as follows –

(i) that at the time of filing written statement some vital points were left out which were not previously known,

(ii) some relevant documents prior to and after 1971 were in custody of others,

(iii) now those documents has been traced out,

(iv) the documents could not be produced earlier despite due diligence,

(v) some important points have come to light with regard to the facts of the case