JUDGMENT : M. Nandi, J. Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Payeng, Standing Counsel, FT matters; Mr. A.I. Ali, Standing Counsel, ECI; Mr. P.Sarmah, learned Senior Government Advocate and Mr. D.J. Das, learned CGC. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the opinion dated 07.03.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, Chirang, Assam in Case No. BNGN/FT/CHR/491/07, declaring the petitioner as a foreigner of post25.03.1971 stream. 3. As it transpires from the material available on record, the petitioner responded to the notice issued by the Tribunal and also filed written statement on 19.03.2018. In the written statement, the petitioner stated that his father was late Jaynabuddin, son of Mahammad Ali @ Mahammad Chakidar and her mother’s name is Sonabhan Bibi. The name of her parents were enlisted on the voter lists of 1966, 1970, 1989 and 1997 under the village - Abdaguri No.2 under Bijni P.S, West Goalpara district and then under Bongaigaon district. It is also stated in the written statement that the petitioner’s name was recorded in the voter list of 1993 with her mother-in-law and her husband Abu Taleb Sheikh @ Abutal Sheikh. 4. As per written statement, the petitioner was born and brought up at village - No.2 Abdaguri. She has no formal education. On attaining the age of majority, she got married to one Abu Taleb Sheikh @ Abutal Sheikh, son of Bahal Sheikh of village - No.1, Bagiduara under Chirang district. The petitioner’s name also appeared in the voter list of 2016 along with her husband. It is further stated in the written statement that the name of petitioner’s father was also recorded in the voter list of 1966. 5. The further case of the petitioner is that though the earlier reference case was proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner as she did not receive the notice, ex-parte opinion was delivered on 20.09.2017, declaring the petitioner as a foreigner of post 1971 stream. Against the said opinion, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court being WP(C) No.347/2018 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.01.2018, with a direction to remand the matter back to the Foreigners’ Tribunal for re-trial by setting aside the ex-parte opinion. Against the said opinion, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court being WP(C) No.347/2018 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.01.2018, with a direction to remand the matter back to the Foreigners’ Tribunal for re-trial by setting aside the ex-parte opinion. As per direction of this Court, the petitioner appeared before the Tribunal and filed her written statement and exhibited 7 (seven) nos. of documents. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Foreigners’ Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidences on record in its true perspective and in a whimsical and arbitrary manner declared the petitioner as a foreigner of post 1971 stream which is perverse and liable to be set aside. 7. It is further submitted that in her written statement, the petitioner has clearly stated that her father’s name was late Jaynabuddin and his name was recorded in the voter list of 1970 vide Ext.1 and legacy data of 1966 vide Ext.2 which implies that she is not the daughter of late Johuruddin as stated in the reference. 8. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order of the Tribunal. The alternative prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner is to remand the matter for re-appreciation and evaluation of the evidences led before the Tribunal. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following case laws- 1) (2022) 3 GLT 816 ( Karim Ali Vs. Union of India) 2) (2021) 4 GLT 664 ( Sujab Ali Vs. Union of India and others) 9. In response, the learned counsel for the FT matters submits that mere filing of written statement and oral testimony in a proceeding under the Foreigners Act, 1946 could not be enough. The fact in issue would have to be proved by the proceedee by adducing documentary evidence which are admissible and relevant. The documents filed by the petitioner were not proved in any manner whatsoever and therefore, the assertion of the petitioner that she is the daughter of late Jaynabuddin is not proved. Hence, Mr. Payeng, has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. On the issue as alleged, learned counsel for the FT matters has referred the following case laws – 1) (2020) 3 GLT 347 (Nur Begum Vs. Hence, Mr. Payeng, has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. On the issue as alleged, learned counsel for the FT matters has referred the following case laws – 1) (2020) 3 GLT 347 (Nur Begum Vs. Union of India & Ors.) 2) (2021) 3 GLT 85 ( Haidar Ali Vs Union of India & Ors.) 3) (2018) 3 GLT 118 (Bijoy Das Vs. Union of India & Ors.) 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the question to be decided in this case whether the opinion rendered by the Tribunal is perverse. 11. In the instant case though the petitioner filed written statement but did not submit her evidence-on-affidavit, by which the petitioner is to establish her case by exhibiting any documents. One Sonabhan Bewa was examined as DW- 1. It appears that without filing of separate evidence-on-affidavit, the petitioner exhibited her documents in the written statement which is not permissible in the eye of law. It is interesting to note that the learned Tribunal rendered his judgment on the basis of the documents exhibited in the written statement. As per law, the petitioner is to prove her case by adducing evidence and not through written statement. 12. According to DW-1 projected mother of the petitioner, she has 8 (eight) children, out of which, petitioner is fourth in number. Her husband’s name was wrongly recorded as Joynabuddin Sk instead of Joinal Sk. She casted her vote in the year 1966 and 1989 along with her husband vide Ext.1 . The petitioner did not cast her vote before marriage. 13. From the evidence of DW-1, it reveals that the documents were not exhibited by DW-1. As such, it cannot be said that the documents vide Exhibit 1 to 6 have in fact exhibited in this case to consider the same for proper adjudication of the case. 14. Written statement is a pleading. Pleading is one thing and proof is another. Pleading is formal allegations by the parties of their respective claims and defenses to provide notice of what is to be expected at trial. Proof is establishment of a fact by evidence or matters before the Court or legal Tribunal. Where the parties are in dispute as regards a material fact, an averment in the pleading does not constitute evidence, as what is stated in the pleading is recital of past event which is required to be proved. Proof is establishment of a fact by evidence or matters before the Court or legal Tribunal. Where the parties are in dispute as regards a material fact, an averment in the pleading does not constitute evidence, as what is stated in the pleading is recital of past event which is required to be proved. Under the Evidence Act, if a material fact pleaded is not proved, it follows that the Court considers or believes that the fact does not exist. Therefore, averment in the pleading cannot be used in favour of the maker. This being the position, the statement made by the petitioner in her written statement that she is the daughter of Jaynabuddin Sheikh and Sonabhan Bibi is recital of past event which is required to be proved by adducing evidence and if such plea is not proved, such statement shall be of no consequence. 15. In view of the irregularities noticed as above, we are of the view that fresh trial is required to file evidence-on-affidavit by the petitioner. Accordingly, the opinion dated 07.03.2018 passed by the learned Member, Foreigners’ Tribunal, Chirang is set aside. 16. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Tribunal within 15 days from today and the learned Tribunal will fix the date for submission of evidence-on- affidavit by the petitioner and thereafter, proceed with the case in accordance with law. 17. It is pertinent to say here that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. 18. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. 19. Transmit the case records to the Tribunal.