USMAN GANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 5.112013 of the Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon passed in FT Case No. 98/2009 (State of Assam v. Usman Ali). By the said judgment, the petitioner has been declared to be a foreigner of post 25.3.1971 stream. The judgment so passed is ex -parte? It appears that the petitioner made the Annexure -10 application under Section IX Rule 13 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex -parte judgment The said application was rejected by order dated 3.6.2013. The petitioner has also challenged the said order. I have heard Mr. M.U. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Talukdar, learned State Counsel and so also Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned ASGI and Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned counsel, representing the respondent No. 6. I have also perused the entire materials on record including the records received from the Tribunal.

(2.) MR . Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal ought to have set aside the ex -parte judgment dated 5.1.2013 inasmuch as on that day, the petitioner had appeared before the Tribunal along with two witnesses. However, his engaged counsel i.e. the respondent No. 6 could not take step because of his busy schedule and eventually the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment ex -parte. According to the petitioner, the ex -parte judgment is passed because of the fault on the part of the engaged counsel i.e. the respondent No. 6.

(3.) PAR contra, in the application for setting aside the ex -parte order(Annexure -10), the petitioner did not attribute any fault on the part of the respondent No. 6. It was also not placed that he had appeared before the Tribunal on 5.1.2013 along with two witnesses. For a ready reference, the said application is also reproduced below: