Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010110682019 2026:GAU-AS:4211 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3322/2019 HARALAL DEBNATH S/O- LT HARICHARAN DEBNATH, R/O- VILL- KHALIHAMARI, P.S. SAMOGURI, DIST- NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 782001 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS. REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-01 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-06 3:THE STATE OF CO-ORDINATOR NRC ASSAM BHANGAGARH GHY-5 4:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NEW DELHI-01 5:SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) NAGAON DIST- NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782001 6:DY. COMMISSIONER Page No.# 2/8 NAGAON DIST- NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 78200 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S Ali, MRS. P B HAZARIKA Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I. (R1), SC, ELECTION COMMISSION. (R4),SC, NRC (R3),SC, F.T (R2,5AND6) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 23.03.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. S. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. C.S. Baruah, learned CGC; Mr. J. Payeng, learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters; Mr. N. Kalita, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for the State respondent. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the impugned opinion dated 13.12.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal (2nd), Nagaon, in FT Case No. 136/2011, arising out of S.P. F.T. Ref. Case No. 536/2001, by which the petitioner was declared as a foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream. 3. The petitioner, upon receipt of notice of the proceedings, appeared before the learned Tribunal and filed his written statement. In support of his written statement, the petitioner examined himself as DW-1 and apart from reiterating the statements made in the written statement, has stated that his Page No.# 3/8 father Haricharan Debnath along with 17 (seventeen) others came to India due to religious persecution and resided at Khalihamari, under Samaguri Police Station in the district of Nagaon and took possession of a plot of land vide deed of exchange bearing registration No. 8823/18 dated 17.07.1968, registered before the Sub-Registrar, Nagaon. 4. It was further stated that after migrating from East Pakistan, his father had casted his vote at Khalihamari along with his mother and that his father had 5 (five) children including himself and that he had cast his vote in the years 1980 and 1985, but he could not cast his vote thereafter as against his name 'D' mark was made. He had exhibited certified copy of exchange deed dated 17.07.1968 (Ext.1), copy of ration card (Ext.2 Ka and Ext.2 Kha), certified copy of voters list of 1970 (Ext.3 Ka), certified copy of voters list of 1975 (Exhibit-3 Kha), and certified copy of voters list of 1985 (Ext.3 Ga). 5. In support of his case, the petitioner also examined one Sudhanya Debnath as DW-2. As per the evidence-on-affidavit of DW-2, which is available in the Tribunal's records, he merely knows the petitioner and has reiterated the statements made in the evidence-on-affidavit filed by the DW-1. 6. The DW-1 and DW-2 had filed their evidence-on-affidavit on 29.05.2018 and they were both cross-examined and discharged on 16.11.2018. 7. In his cross-examination, DW-2 has stated that the mother of the petitioner is alive but he does not know her name. 8. The learned Tribunal, after considering the pleadings and evidence on record, discarded Ext.1 as the same had not been proved. The learned Tribunal also considered the pleadings wherein it was stated that his mother and father had casted vote, but no voters list in his mother's name was produced. Page No.# 4/8 Accordingly, the voters list as Ext.2 and 3 cannot be treated as a valid documents to prove citizenship, and it was held that the petitioner could not discharge his burden as per the mandate of Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 to establish his Indian citizenship. Resultantly, the petitioner was held to be a foreigner post 25.03.0971. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not well guided by his learned counsel during the trial before the learned Foreigners Tribunal. It is submitted that the petitioner has his own separate land documents, which could establish his link with his projected father. It was also submitted that as the deed of exchange was not exhibited, the matter be remanded back to the learned Tribunal to give a fresh opportunity to the petitioner to produce additional documents and to prove the same. He further submitted that the petitioner has been able to show that his parents had entered into India in the year 1968 and therefore, the petitioner was required to be declared as a citizen of India. 10. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the FT and Nagaon matters has submitted that the petitioner has not been able to link himself with his projected parents, and therefore, no interference with the opinion is called for. 11. We have perused the records received from the learned Tribunal, considered the writ petition and the annexures thereto and also considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 12. Insofar as the evidence of DW-2 is concerned, it is clear from his evidence-on-affidavit that he is a person who knows the petitioner. Therefore, he is not a related witness. As per the statement made in cross-examination, Page No.# 5/8 the petitioner as DW-1 had disclosed that his father had 5 (five) children and disclosed their names, however, the entire family of the petitioner does not appear in any of the exhibited voters list. The voters list of 1970 (Ext.3 Ka), 1975 (Ext.3 Kha) are the certified copies of single-entry voter list showing the name of Harimohan, fathers name Purnachandra. The voter list of 1985 (Ext.3 Ga) is also a certified copy of a single-entry voter list showing the name of Harlal, father's name Haricharan. 13. Thus, the person who is the voter in the voters list of 1970 and 1975 is Harimohan, whereas in the voter list of 1985, the petitioner Haralal's father is Haricharan. There is no other document to show that Harimohan, the voter in the 1970 and 1975 voter list, is the same person who is projected to be the father of the petitioner. 14. In this writ petition, the petitioner has annexed as Annexure-1A the certified copy of the purported deed of change bearing deed No. 8823 of 1968 registered on 17.07.1968. Therefore, even before this Court, the original deed has not been produced. In this writ petition, the petitioner claims that he has separate land in his own name. However, on a perusal of the jamabandi appended to the writ petition as Annexure-6A and Annexure-7A respectively, the entries made therein do not disclose that the petitioner had any land independently procured, but those lands are found referable to the land of the father which is disclosed in Ext.1. 15. In this writ petition, there is no statement that the petitioner has land independent of his projected father. Therefore, the petitioner has not been able to connect himself with his projected father or mother to prove that the petitioner is the son of the person whose name appears in the said deed of exchange dated 17.07.1968. Page No.# 6/8 16. The prayer of the petitioner is to allow the petitioner to produce additional documents before the learned Tribunal. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that he made any attempt to produce any additional documents before the learned Tribunal. It is the duty of the petitioner to satisfy the Court that the case is made out within the parameters of the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC to permit any additional evidence to be brought on record. In this regard, the Court is guided by the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India V. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8 SCC 148 : 2012 2012 (0) Supreme (SC) 465. It would be relevant to quote paragraphs 27 to 30 and 37 of the said judgment [extracted from 2012 (0) Supreme (SC) 465]. “27. Under Order XLI, Rule 27 CPC, the appellate Court has the power to allow a document to be produced and a witness to be examined. But the requirement of the said Court must be limited to those cases where it found it necessary to obtain such evidence for enabling it to pronounce judgment. This provision does not entitle the appellate Court to let in fresh evidence at the appellate stage where even without such evidence it can pronounce judgment in a case. It does not entitle the appellate Court to let in fresh evidence only for the purpose of pronouncing judgment in a particular way. In other words, it is only for removing a lacuna in the evidence that the appellate Court is empowered to admit additional evidence. [Vide: Lala Pancham & Ors. (supra) ]. 28. It is not the business of the Appellate Court to supplement the evidence adduced by one party or the other in the lower Court. Hence, in the absence of satisfactory reasons for the nonproduction of the evidence in the trial court, additional evidence should not be admitted in appeal as a party guilty of remissness in the lower court is not entitled to the indulgence of being allowed to give further evidence under this rule. So a party who had ample opportunity to produce certain evidence in the lower court but failed to do so or elected not to do so, cannot have it admitted in appeal. (Vide: State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, AIR 1957 SC 912; and S. Rajagopal v. C.M. Armugam & Ors., AIR 1969 SC 101). 29. The inadvertence of the party or his inability to understand the legal issues involved or the wrong advice of a pleader or the negligence of a pleader or that the party did not realise the importance of a document does not constitute a "substantial Page No.# 7/8 cause" within the meaning of this rule. The mere fact that certain evidence is important, is not in itself a sufficient ground for admitting that evidence in appeal. 30. The words "for any other substantial cause" must be read with the word "requires" in the beginning of sentence, so that it is only where, for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court requires additional evidence, that this rule will apply, e.g., when evidence has been taken by the lower Court so imperfectly that the Appellate Court cannot pass a satisfactory judgment. x x x 37. To sum up on the issue, it may be held that application for taking additional evidence on record at a belated stage cannot be filed as a matter of right. The court can consider such an application with circumspection, provided it is covered under either of the prerequisite condition incorporated in the statutory provisions itself. The discretion is to be exercised by the court judicially taking into consideration the relevance of the document in respect of the issues involved in the case and the circumstances under which such an evidence could not be led in the court below and as to whether the applicant had prosecuted his case before the court below diligently and as to whether such evidence is required to pronounce the judgment by the appellate court. In case the court comes to the conclusion that the application filed comes within the four corners of the statutory provisions itself, the evidence may be taken on record, however, the court must record reasons as on what basis such an application has been allowed. However, the application should not be moved at a belated stage.” 17. Accordingly, the foundational facts and pleadings to introduce additional evidence are not available in the writ petition. Moreover, no attempt was made by the petitioner to produce further evidence before the learned Tribunal. 18. Accordingly, in this case, the Court has no power to remand the matter back to the learned Tribunal to merely permit the petitioner to adduce additional evidence so as to fill up the lacuna. 19. Accordingly, the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any infirmity in the impugned opinion dated 13.12.2018. This Court, in exercise of Page No.# 8/8 certiorari jurisdiction, will not substitute its wisdom for the decision arrived at by the learned Tribunal, which has not been demonstrated to be incorrect or perverse. 20. Resultantly, this writ petition fails. 21. However, at this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned opinion dated 13.12.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal (2nd), Nagaon, in FT Case No. 136/2011, arising out of S.P. F.T. Ref. Case No. 536/2001 as well as this order would not prejudice the petitioner in case the petitioner chooses to apply for registration under Section 6A of the Citizenship Act. 22. In this regard, the Court is of the considered opinion that if any such application is made, it would be purely on the wisdom of the appropriate Govt. to consider the matter and pass an appropriate decision on such application. 23. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is dismissed. 24. Registry shall send back the Tribunal’s record along with a copy of this order to make a part of the record. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant