Heard Mr. G.P. Bhowmik, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in both the appeals and Ms. M. Hazarika, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents in both the appeals.

2. RSA No.98/2008 is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 21.01.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh, in Title Appeal No.14/2005 dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No.1, Dibrugarh, in Title Suit No.9/2002, whereby the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

3. RSA No.99/2008 is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 21.01.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh, in Title Appeal No.15/2005 dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No.1, Dibrugarh, in Title Suit No.39/2001, whereby the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

4. Both the second appeals were admitted to be heard by separate orders passed on 11.08.2008 on the following substantial question of law:-

“Whether a suit filed by the plaintiff can be dismissed as barred by limitation on the ground that no separate application had been filed praying for exclusion of time for proceeding bonafide in Court without jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 ?”

5. By an order dated 07.06.1996, the plaintiff in Title Suit No.39/2001, who at the relevant point of time was holding the post of Principal of Anganwadi Training Centre, Dibrugarh under Indian Council of Child Welfare, Assam State Branch, was informed that the Executive Committee had decided that her services are no longer required w.e.f. 15.07.1996. By an order dated 11.03.1996, the services of plaintiff in Title Suit No.9/2002, who at the relevant point of time was working as Accounts Assistant under Indian Council of Child Welfare, Assam State Branch was terminated with effect from 01.03.1996.

6. Appellant in RSA No.98/2008 challenged the said order dated 11.03.1996 by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which was registered as Civil Rule No.2341/1996 and the said petition was dismissed on 08.10.2001. It was observed as follows:-

“In view of the above, it cannot be said that the respondent No.3 is a state within the meaning of Article 12 for the purpose of imposing service conditions. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost.”

7. Appellant in RSA No.99/2008 challenged the order dated 07.06.1996 by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which was registered as Civil Rule No. 2940/1996. The operative portion of the said order reads as follows:-

“For the foregoing reasons, the respondent No.2 does not fall within the purview of “other authorities as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution. The petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed.”

8. A writ appeal was also preferred against the said judgment, which was registered as W.A. No.134/1998 and the same was also dismissed by an order dated 05.03.2001. Thereafter, both the appellants filed their respective suits.

9. Having regard to the substantial question of law as framed, it may not be necessary to dwell upon the stand taken by the defendants in the suit.

10. In Title Suit No.9/2002, following issues were framed:-

“(i) Whether the suit is maintainable in law and in fact ?

(ii) Whether there is cause of action in the suit ?

(iii) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation, resjudicate and bad for non-joinder of state of Assam as necessary party ?

(iv) Whether the suit is barred under the specific Relief Act ?

(v) Whether the reasonable opportunity of hearing of the plaintiff was given in the enquiry as per the proper procedure ?

(vi) Whether the order of termination of service of the plaintiff is illegal?

(vii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree as prayed for ?”

11. In Title Suit No.39/2001, following issues were framed:-

“(1) Whether the suit is maintainable in