MUSTT. FATEMA KHATUN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the Annexure-2 order dated 29th August, 2012, followed by Annexure-3 and Annexure 5 orders dated 1st August, 2013 and 10th June, 2015. The orders are of the Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon passed in F.T. Case No.563 of 2011 [State v. Musstt. Fatema Khatun]. While by the first order dated 29th August, 2012, the petitioner was declared to be a foreigner of post 25th March, 1971 stream upon her failure to discharge the burden of proof as envisaged under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, by the second order dated 1st August, 2013, her application for setting aside the said ex-parte order was rejected. So far as the third impugned order is concerned, by the said order dated 10th June, 2015, her application under Section 114 CPC read with Section 151 CPC has been rejected, being devoid of any merit.

(2.) We have heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also heard Ms. G. Sarma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India and so also Mr. M. Bhagabati, learned State counsel. We have also perused the entire materials on record including the LCR received from the Tribunal.

(3.) It appears that inspite of service of notice, the petitioner remained absent before the Tribunal on 3rd September, 2011. However, the matter was adjourned to 13th October, 2011, on which date, she appeared and filed written statement and photocopies of some documents. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 28th November, 2011 for evidence of the petitioner. She remained absent on all subsequent dates, which are 28th November, 2011; 12th January, 2012; 7th March, 2012; 2nd May, 2012; 22nd June, 2012; 3rd August, 2012 and finally 9th August, 2012 without any steps. Above being the position, the Tribunal had no other option than to decide the reference ex-parte against the petitioner. However, the petitioner filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC praying for setting aside the ex-parte order. The application was rejected by the second impugned order dated 1st August, 2013. In the application that was filed for setting aside the ex-parte order, the petitioner had contended that her engaged counsel had taken her signatures on papers and also assured of taking all necessary steps but due to his fault, the reference was answered ex-parte.