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 may be taken into account. 10. Mr. 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 may be taken into account. 10. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as regards the rejection by the learned Tribunal by invoking the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, though the principles of CPC may be generally applicable, it may not be strictly applied and as such, rejection by the learned Tribunal is not in accordance with law. 11. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that since there is no appellate forum nor any higher forum which can exercise supervisory power over the order passed by the learned Tribunal and since the matter arose out of an interim order which has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner, the petitioner has invoked the provision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Ors., (2003) 6 SCC 675 that the scope of Article 227 is in fact larger than Article 226 and under this provision, this Court can exercise supervisory jurisdiction even in the functioning of the Tribunal. 12. It has been submitted by Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, the learned Tribunal by invoking provisions of CPC had denied the petitioner to file the documents which is contrary to law and as such, this Court can intervene to pass appropriate order to allow filing of the aforesaid documents. 13. This petition, however, has been resisted by Mr. Payeng, learned Special Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal on the ground that the petitioner cannot rely on the decision of this Court in Haidar Ali (supra) on the ground that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable though the principles may be applied, inasmuch as in the present case, the petitioner herself has invoked Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for amendment of the written statement as well as under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) read with Section 151 of the CPC, 1908, thus, the petitioner cannot approbate and reprobate. Secondly, it has been submitted that the petitioner had failed to exercise due diligence and also failed to file these documents at the time of filing the written statement and as such, it is the petitioner herself who has to be blamed for the present situation. 14. In this regard, Mr. Payeng has relied on the decision of this Court in Nilbhan (Musstt.) Vs. Union of India, 2021 (1) GLT 799. 15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we would like to make our observations as follows. The proceeding before the Tribunal is sui generis. As to the procedure to be followed by the Tribunal, it has been already explained by the Full Bench of this Court in State of Assam and others Vs. Moslem Mondal and others, 2013 (1) GLT 809. In para 89 of Moslem Mondal (supra), the Full Bench of this Court observed that the Tribunal is empowered to regulate its own procedure and the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is not applicable in the proceeding except to the matter stipulated in Clause 4 of Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, which confers the Tribunal the power of a Civil Court while trying a suit under Civil Court in respect of (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and his examination on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of any document; and (c) issuing commissions for the examination of any witness. 16. It may be noted that the Full Bench while deciding the scope of review further observed in para 90 of the said decision in Moslem Mondal (supra) that though strictly speaking as soon as the Tribunal renders its opinion it becomes functuso icio as no proceeding thereafter is pending, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass an order, even after the disposal of the proceeding, in the interest of justice. 17. 17. The Full Bench further observed that the Courts and Tribunals exist to do justice and it cannot refuse to entertain an application, even after the proceeding before it is over, on the ground that there is no specific provision in law laying down the procedure for entertaining an application, if such application is required to be entertained to do justice between the parties, otherwise the very existence of the Court or the Tribunal would be meaningless, if in a given case where such an order is required to be passed, the Court or the Tribunal refuses to pass such order on the plea of technicalities. The Full Bench further went to observe that the procedures are handmaid of justice and must be regarded as something designed to facilitate justice and further its ends and not a thing designed to trip people up relying on the decision of Sangram Singh Vs. Election Tribunal, Kotah, AIR 1955 SC 425 . 18. The Full Bench also observed that by the nature of the quasi-judicial proceeding before the Tribunal, they have the trappings of the Civil Court. Neither the Foreigners Act, 1946 nor the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 nor any procedure formulated by the Tribunal prohibits acceptance of any application after rendering the opinion by the Tribunal, if the entertainment of the same is required for ends of justice. 19. Thus, from the above, what can be gathered is that the Full Bench of this Court had laid emphasis on the aspect of securing justice for which the technicalities should not come in the way and also reiterated that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are otherwise, strictly not applicable. 20. This Court also in Haidar Ali(Supra) discussed about the scope of applicability of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and “written statement” filed before the Tribunal. 20. This Court also in Haidar Ali(Supra) discussed about the scope of applicability of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and “written statement” filed before the Tribunal. In that context, it was observed that while “written statement” as contemplated under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is intended for defending or contesting the claim made in the plaint with reference to the specific pleadings raised in the plaint, in case of “written statement” filed in a proceeding before the Foreigners Tribunal under Foreigners Act, 1946 and Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, the same is in the nature of responding to the charge of the State that he is suspected to be a foreigner and to enable him to explain his position and produce evidence in support of his claim. 21. This Court also observed that in respect of a suit or any such proceeding where Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is applicable, there are certain norms which are to be followed, which also applies to written statement, as to how is to be filed, when it is to be filed and how any change can be made etc. These norms are required to be adhered to, as provided under Order VIII of the CPC so as to avoid undue delay in the proceeding and also to avoid taking the opposite side by surprise by introducing new plea or any fact which was not raised earlier. 22. On the other hand, the expression “written statement” used in the proceeding before the Foreigners Tribunal is different from that as understood under CPC as it is merely to enable the proceedee to make his representation against the reference and to produce evidence in support of his claim that he is an Indian and not a foreigner and as such, the rules of pleadings governing “written statement” under CPC are not applicable. 23. This Court in the aforesaid case of Haidar Ali (supra), accordingly, explained the scope of “written statement” in a proceeding before the Tribunal to underscore that it is merely a process to enable the proceedee to explain his position and also to adduce evidence. There is no “trial” before a Tribunal as understood under the CPC. 24. Therefore, it will be permissible to introduce any fact or document at a later stage inasmuch as said introduction of fact or evidence or document though at a later stage, does not take the State by surprise. There is no “trial” before a Tribunal as understood under the CPC. 24. Therefore, it will be permissible to introduce any fact or document at a later stage inasmuch as said introduction of fact or evidence or document though at a later stage, does not take the State by surprise. In fact, such a prayer ought to be allowed to support the claim of proceedee that he is an Indian and not a foreigner and all opportunities should be given to a proceedee. 25. In this regard, we may refer to the observations made by this Court in Haidar Ali (supra). Para Nos.27, 28 and 29 of the said decision are accordingly, reproduced hereinbelow. “27. Therefore, under the scheme of the CPC, the written statement is to be filed setting up his case in response to the averments, allegations and reliefs claimed in the plaint and the documents also should be produced along with the written statement so that the plaintiff is not taken by surprise. It is to be noted that, however, in a proceeding under the Foreigners Tribunal, as the practice at present appears to be that the proceeding is initiated only after a reference is made by the competent referral authority to the Tribunal and the Tribunal after taking cognizance of the reference made to it, merely issues a notice without any other document to the proceedee, only informing that after necessary investigation done in this regard, the proceedee is considered to be an illegal immigrant either during the period of 01.01.1966 and before 25.03.1971, or on or after 25.03.1971, as the case may be. In fact, no other document, other than the notice is given to proceedee as in the present practice. Thus, the proceedee does not know under what circumstances the reference has been made and as to how the Tribunal has decided to initiate the proceedings against the proceedee and what response is to be made except to prove that he is an Indian and not a foreigner. In fact, in this petition, the petitioner has also taken the plea that he had raised objection before the Tribunal that no proper investigation was done nor any authority asked the petitioner to produce any document in support of his citizenship. In fact, in this petition, the petitioner has also taken the plea that he had raised objection before the Tribunal that no proper investigation was done nor any authority asked the petitioner to produce any document in support of his citizenship. Thus, while “written statement” as understood under the CPC is a defence put up by the defendant with reference to and in response to the specific averments and allegations made in the plaint in response to the plaint, in the case of a proceeding before the Tribunal, no such plaint or the charge is filed except for informing the proceedee through a mere notice or summon issued by the Tribunal issued by making an allegation that the proceedee is not an Indian but a foreigner who came to India on a certain specific period of time. In fact, what is happening so far before the Tribunal is that a notice is merely issued to the proceedee informing that he or she is an illegal entrant to the State, in the territory of Assam and India from the specified territory and certain specific period of time, without any other facts and documents being furnished to him. From the records, it is also seen that after issuing summons to the proceedee or before issuing summons to the proceedee, the Tribunal does not examine any of the persons who had made the reference or who had conducted the investigation against the proceedee to hold that the proceedee is a foreigner. Thus, the proceedee is totally in dark as to how he came to be considered to be a foreigner and not an Indian. However, since this petition is disposed of on consideration of other grounds raised, the issue whether a proceedee is entitled to more than mere notice will be considered in an appropriate case. 28. It may be also mentioned that the principle behind Order VIII Rule 2 CPC is that all the facts must be specifically pleaded, to avoid taking the opposite parties by surprise by having new plea or introducing any fact which was not raised earlier. Same is the case of filing of documents which are in possession or power of the defendant. Same is the case of filing of documents which are in possession or power of the defendant. However, in the proceeding under the Foreigners Tribunal, the onus has been squarely put on the proceedee to prove that he is not a foreigner but an Indian and apart from the notice, no other document is furnished to the proceedee by the Tribunal and as such if the proceedee introduces new facts to discharge his onus, it cannot be said to take the State by surprise, as the proceedee is merely trying to prove his case and is not responding to any other allegation, other than that he is a foreigner. 29. From the above, what is important to note is that the Foreigners Tribunal constituted under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 merely provides a proceedee a reasonable opportunity for making a representation and producing evidence in support of his case before the Tribunal and as such, normally, the rules of pleadings including that of “written statement” as provided under the CPC are not applicable. As a corollary, the principles contained in the CPC relating to the scope of written statement and limitations placed thereon cannot be strictly applied in the proceedings before the Tribunal though the principles may generally be applied. In fact, all opportunities should be given to a proceedee to enable him to produce all such documents which come to his possession even at a later stage also, to substantiate his claim that he is an Indian. No pedantic view should be taken, if there has been some delay or if the same is not mentioned in the written statement. Even under the scheme of the CPC, the right to file any document at a later stage, even if at the appellate stage, is always there, subject to leave of the court and if such documents are relevant and highly necessary and could not be produced earlier after exercise of due diligence (vide Order XLI Rule 27 CPC). Thus, if the proceedee is able to make out a case for filing a document at a later stage, the same cannot be denied and no adverse inference can be drawn. Similarly, if any fact is introduced at the time of adducing evidence, though the same is not mentioned in the written statement, no exception can be made. It cannot be said to be improvement and adverse inference accordingly taken thereof. Similarly, if any fact is introduced at the time of adducing evidence, though the same is not mentioned in the written statement, no exception can be made. It cannot be said to be improvement and adverse inference accordingly taken thereof. Non-mentioning of any person or fact or document in the written statement, if mentioned later, cannot be said to cause any surprise or prejudice to the State so as to ignore such new fact or document. In any event, liberty is always with the State to rebut any evidence after the proceedee has completed adducing evidence. We have also noted that the witnesses who adduced evidence are cross-examined by the State and as such, if such deposition cannot be shaken during the cross-examination, no adverse inference can be drawn against the petitioner.” 26. Keeping the aforesaid principles in mind, we are of the view that if the documents sought to be relied upon by the petitioner are relevant and necessary to prove her case that she is an Indian and not a foreigner, such introduction of documents cannot be said to be pre-judicial to the interest of the State at all. It is not the case that the State has already adduced rebuttal evidence. We are of the view that allowing the petitioner to make amendment in the written statement and file evidence cannot cause any prejudice to the State. 27. As regards the decision in Nilbhan (supra) relied on by Mr. Payeng, learned Standing Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal, it was held by this Court that the documents sought to be introduced are all documents which existed before the petitioner had submitted her written statement and adduced her evidence and accordingly, this Court upheld the rejection by the Tribunal to introduce additional pleadings under Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC at a later stage. 28. In the present case, however, it has been specifically mentioned that the documents sought to be produced by the petitioner came to her possession subsequently after filing of the written statement. 29. It was pleaded that the petitioner could not obtain the certified copies of voters lists as the election officials were busy with NRC duties. The petitioner also wanted to file a copy of the sale deed dated 06.11.1958 bearing Sale Deed No. 2380, which was obtained after the petitioner filed her written statement. 29. It was pleaded that the petitioner could not obtain the certified copies of voters lists as the election officials were busy with NRC duties. The petitioner also wanted to file a copy of the sale deed dated 06.11.1958 bearing Sale Deed No. 2380, which was obtained after the petitioner filed her written statement. By the said document, the petitioner sought to prove that her grandfather Late Radhika Mohan Paul had purchased 02 Katha 15 Lechas of land. Accordingly, in our view, the said judgment Nilbhan (supra) is not applicable in the present case. 30. We have gone through the order passed by the learned Tribunal on 06.12.2019 by which the application of the petitioner to file the aforesaid documents and prove the same was rejected. The impugned order dated 06.12.2019 passed by the learned Tribunal reads as follows, “…….. 06.12.2019 Procedee is present and has filed a petition U/o VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. and U/o 8 Rule 1A(3) read with Sec.151 of the C.P.C. It is seen that the cross examination of the Proceedee and one her another witnesses are held. In the Rule 17 of order 6 it is specifically mentioned “Provided no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commence unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commence of trial.” The Proceedee could not mention reason of her failure to raise the matter before the commencement of the trial. Therefore I have found no reason to allow to file amendment W.S. as prayed for after cross examination of the Proceedee and other witnesses. Hence, it is rejected. For the same reason as above the Petition which is filed U/o 8 rule 1A(3) is also rejected as the cross examination of the Proceedee is already held on 25-09-2019 and on that day also the Proceedee has not filed any petition to receive any document before her cross-examination. Official witnesses are absent. It is seen from the record that the Proceedee has not taken any step for serving summons on the witnesses. However for the end of justice one another chance is given to the Proceedee. Procedee will take step within 3(three) days. Fixing 26-02-2020 for examination of the official witnesses.” 31. Official witnesses are absent. It is seen from the record that the Proceedee has not taken any step for serving summons on the witnesses. However for the end of justice one another chance is given to the Proceedee. Procedee will take step within 3(three) days. Fixing 26-02-2020 for examination of the official witnesses.” 31. The reason for rejection of the said application of the petitioner is that the proceedee did not mention the reason of her failure to raise the matter before the commencement of the trial and that the cross-examination of the proceedee had already been held on 25.09.2019 during which time she did not submit any petition to file such document. 32. However, as can be seen from the petition filed before the learned Tribunal, the petitioner/proceedee had specifically mentioned that she could not get the certified copy of the sale deed of land purchased by her grandfather as she could obtained the certified copy later only on 11.10.2009 and accordingly, sought to make amendment in the written statement to bring on record the said sale deed. 33. Petitioner also filed an application before the learned Tribunal for allowing her to produce certified copies of certain voters lists of her mother Jamuna Paul for the year 1993, 1997, 2005 and 2019 as she could get the certified copies of the said voters lists belatedly which she could not file at the time of filing the written statement as the election officials were busy with NRC duties. 34. In our opinion, since the petitioner had explained the reasons for delay in submitting the aforesaid documents and her inability to file these at the time of filing the written statement, and since these documents would be highly relevant to prove her claim that she is an Indian and not a foreigner, we are of the view that the Tribunal ought not have rejected the application. 35. We are also of the view that production of these documents will not cause any surprise or prejudice to the State, though certain delay may be caused in the proceeding but the said delay cannot be said to be deliberate as the petitioner could not get the certified copies of the said documents earlier. 36. 35. We are also of the view that production of these documents will not cause any surprise or prejudice to the State, though certain delay may be caused in the proceeding but the said delay cannot be said to be deliberate as the petitioner could not get the certified copies of the said documents earlier. 36. We are, thus, of the view that rejection of the application by the Tribunal to allow the petitioner to produce the documents, on the ground that the same were sought to be filed after the trial has commenced, does not appear to be sound and accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we allow this petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 06.12.2019 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Tezpur (1st), Assam in F.T.(D) Case No.1410/2012 and direct the Tribunal to allow the petitioner to produce the aforesaid documents and prove the same in accordance with law. 37. Before we part with this order, we would like to make the observation that the petitioner has filed the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and no serious attempt has been made to resist by the respondents. However, it is now well settled that the power of “superintendence” conferred upon the High Court by Article 227 of the 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. 38. In this regard, one may have reference to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath, 2015(5) SCC 423 . In Radhey Shyam (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that despite curtailment of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC by Act 46 of 1999, jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 remains unaffected, and it has been wrongly assumed in certain quarters that the said jurisdiction has been expanded. The Hon’ble Supreme Court went on to observe that the scope of Article 227 has been explained in several decisions including in Waryam Singh and Another Vs. Amarnath and Another, AIR 1954 SC 215 , Ouseph Mathai Vs. M. Abdul Khadir, (2002) 1 SCC 319 , Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, ( 2010 8 SCC 329 and Sameer Suresh Gupta Vs. Amarnath and Another, AIR 1954 SC 215 , Ouseph Mathai Vs. M. Abdul Khadir, (2002) 1 SCC 319 , Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, ( 2010 8 SCC 329 and Sameer Suresh Gupta Vs. Rahul Kumar Agarwal, (2013) 9 SCC 374 . In Waryam Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed about the scope of Article 227 held that power conferred under Article 227 to the High Court is not only administrative superintendence over Subordinate Courts and Tribunals but also judicial superintendence, though the power is to be used most sparingly and in appropriate cases in order to keep the Subordinate Courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. The same view was reiterated in the subsequent decisions in Ouseph Mathai (supra), Shalini Shyam Shetty (supra). 39. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no appellate forum provided under the rules to challenge any order passed by the Foreigners Tribunal. In our view, though Article 226 of the Constitution of India could also have been invoked, an application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be rejected inasmuch as in the present case, a grave injustice may be caused to the petitioner if the petitioner is not allowed to file the said documents as these would help the petitioner before the Tribunal which will ultimately decide the fate of the citizenship of the petitioner. 40. The matter is, accordingly, remanded to the learned Foreigners Tribunal and the learned Tribunal will proceed with the matter accordingly in terms of the observations made above. 41. LCR be remitted forthwith to the Foreigners Tribunal, Tezpur (1st) for further proceeding. The petitioner will appear before the learned Tribunal within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.