Point of Law : Proof of citizenship – Production of documents - Power of “superintendence” conferred upon the High Court by Art. 227 of Constitution of India is not merely confined to administrative superintendence only but also includes the power of judicial revision where no appeal or revision lies to the High Court under the ordinary law, though such power is to be used very sparingly.

JUDGMENT :

N.Kotiswar Singh, J.

Heard Mr. S. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. L. Devi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned ASGI appearing for respondent No.1; Mr. J. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal for respondent Nos.2 & 4 and Ms. U. Das, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for respondent No.3.

2. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 06.12.2019 passed by learned Foreigners Tribunal, Tezpur (1st), Assam in F.T.(D) Case No.1410/2012 by which the application of the petitioner filed under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) read with Section of the 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for production of the certain documents was disallowed by the learned Tribunal on the ground that the petitioner had examined herself and another witness and they have been cross-examined.

3. The documents which the petitioner sought to produce before the learned Tribunal are as follows,

(i) A photostat copy of certified copy of Electoral Roll for the year 1993 of 76 Biswanath LAC in the name of mother of the petitioner, Jamuna Paul;

(ii) A photostat copy of certified copy of Electoral Roll for the year 1997 of 76 Biswanath LAC in the name of Jamuna Paul;

(iii) A photostat copy of certified copy of Electoral Roll for the year 2005 of 76 Biswanath LAC in the name of Jamuna Paul;

(iv) A photostat copy of certified copy of Electoral Roll for the year 2019 of 76 Biswanath LAC in the name of Jamuna Paul;

(v) A photostat copy of certified copy of registered Sale-Deed No.2380 for the year 1958 of Tezpur Sub-Registry Office, registered on 06.11.58 executed by one Chandul Ram Prasad (vendor) in favour of Sri Radhika Mohan Rudra Paul (vendee) also the projected grandfather of the petitioner;

(vi) A photostat copy of Draft Jamanbandi of P.P. No.199 (old) 119 (new) under Dag Nos.235, 495, 499, 377:411, 645:650 of Village Saikiachuburi Dekargaon, Mouza-Haleswar, District-Sonitpur, Assam.

In other words, the petitioner filed the application to produce these documents after the commencement of the proceeding, which, according to the learned Tribunal, is not permissible in view of Rule 17 Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which specifically provides that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trail has commenced unless the Court comes to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.

4. Being aggrieved, the present petition has been filed before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to be issued to the learned Tribunal to receive the said documents.

5. Mr. S. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid documents are vital documents to prove the link of the petitioner to her father and in turn to her grandfather, who had been living in the State of Assam prior to 1966 and as such, she cannot be treated to be a foreigner.

6. It has been further submitted that these are the documents which do not contradict any of the statements/averments made in the written statement filed by the petitioner and it is merely to strengthen her case before the learned Tribunal.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the certified copies of the voters lists could not be obtained earlier because of the busy schedule of the staff on National Register of Citizens (N.R.C.) duty and as such, these could not be filed along with the written statement.

8. It has been also submitted that similarly, as far as the certified copy of the Sale Deed is concerned, the same could not be obtained earlier at the time of filing of the written statement.

9. It has been submitted that, in any event, production of these documents would not cause any prejudice to the State and relying on the decision of this Court in Haidar Ali Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2021 (3) GLT 85, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the same ma