JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - Heard further argument from the parties, hearing is concluded and the judgment is as follows. 2. Judgment and Decree passed by learned Subordinate Judge, Sudargarh in Title Suit No. 4 of 1978 is under challenge in this appeal. Respondent No. 1 was the Plaintiff and the Appellants and Respondent No. 2 were respectively Defendants 1 to 4 in that suit. 3. Plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit with the assertion that he was employed as 'Bhumi Rakhyak' as per Memo No. 302, dated 01.02.1971 (Ext.6). He was granted annual increment Ext.7 and his service was extended up to 29.02.1972 (Ext. 1). On 28.02.1973 he was,transferred to Sundargarh headquarter, but due to illness from 04.02.1973 to 16.02.1973 he applied for leave and on getting the fitness certificate he resumed to duty on 16.02.1973, and in obedience to the order of transfer dated 28.02.1973 he joined the office of Defendant No. 5 on 15.03.1973, but his joining report was not accepted. Thereafter he ran from pillar to post and ultimately approached the Collector but did not get any relief. Ultimately, as per the office memo dated 03.04.1976 (Ext. 9) he was intimated that his service was terminated w.e.f. 01.03.1973 and that such order was not received by him. He denied to the averments of receiving any communication of the order of termination till the date of receipt of the aforesaid letter in November, 1975 and accordingly issued notice u/s 80, CPC and thereafter instituted the suit by filing the application under Order 33, Rule 1, CPC He claimed for arrear salary calculated at Rs. 9187.24 paisa, reinstatement in, service on the ground that the order of termination is illegal having been passed behind his back and without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing and the cost of the suit. Plaintiff also alleged that vindictive attitude was taken against him for his failure to oblige Defendant No. 4 in providing ghee prepared out of cow-milk though in past he had supplied such materials to Defendant No. 4. 4. Defendants filed written statement, inter alia stating that Plaintiff got tenure appointment and that was extended from time to time and therefore such tenure appointment was -not extended beyond 28.02.1973 and accordingly the order of termination was passed and was intimated to the Plaintiff, which is evident from the Issue Dispatch Register (Exts. 4. Defendants filed written statement, inter alia stating that Plaintiff got tenure appointment and that was extended from time to time and therefore such tenure appointment was -not extended beyond 28.02.1973 and accordingly the order of termination was passed and was intimated to the Plaintiff, which is evident from the Issue Dispatch Register (Exts. K and L), and according to that Plaintiff was intimated in the month of March, 1973 about the termination. Defendants further took the plea of non-maintainability of the suit, the suit being barred by law of limitation and the Plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed by him. 5. On the basis of such pleadings of the parties, the following nine issues were framed for adjudication of the dispute. Issues 1. Whether the suit is maintainable? 2. Whether the Plaintiff was appointed purely on temporary basis, his services being extended from time to time according to department needs? 3. Whether the Plaintiff willfully remained absent from duty and for that reason his services had been rightly terminated? 4. Whether the personal allegation made by the Plaintiff is baseless and fantastic? 5. Whether the termination of service of the Plaintiff by Defendant No. A is legal and proper or in other words void or inoperative? 6. Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the nature of the suit and grant relief? 7. Whether the suit is time barred? 8. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to arrear payer future pay as claimed by him? 9. What relief, if any, is the Plaintiff entitled to ? 6. Plaintiff examined four witnesses including himself as P.W. 2 and the Defendants examined Defendant No. 4 as D.W.1, i.e., the solitary witness. Though it has been indicated in the judgment at its bottom so also in the list of exhibits maintained in the lower court's record that Plaintiff tendered in evidence the documents marked Exts.1 to 18, but it reveals from the order-sheets maintained in the lower court and the deposition of witnesses that only documents marked Exts.l to 5/a, 17 and 18 were marked as Exhibits as per the court's order (they having been proved or admitted). So far as the rest of the documents, i.e., from Exts.6 to 16/a, there is No. order from the trial court at any stage which can be gathered from the order sheets or from the deposition of witnesses that such documents were proved or directed to be marked as Exhibits. Defendants proved/relied on the documentary evidence marked Exts. A to P/l and at the instance of the trial court Ext.I to Ext.V were marked. 7. The trial court conjointly took up for decision Issue Nos. 1 to 6 and recorded that the suit is maintainable. There was No. evidence that Plaintiff was appointed on temporary basis or that he withheld himself from the duty in furtherance of his termination and that the allegation made by the Plaintiff against.Defendant No. 4 is true and the order of termination is illegal. In that respect learned Subordinate Judge banked on the documentary evidence which includes Exts.6 to 10, 14 and 18 besides the documents relied on by the Defendants and the oral evidence of the parties. On issue Nos. 7 and 8 he recorded the finding that the claim is governed by Article 7 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the period of three years was to be counted from 01.11.1975 and since the suit was instituted by filing the application under Order 33, Rule 1, CPC on 16.12.1976, therefore the suit was not barred by law of Limitation and therefore Plaintiff is entitled to all the reliefs of arrear salary and reinstatement in service together with cost of the suit. He also decided issue No. 9 accordingly and passed the impugned judgment and decree. Keeping in view the contention of the Plaintiff and his assertion that he was regularly observed as a 'Bhumi Rakhyak' and he was not a tenure appointee, Respondent was asked by this Court if he could produce the Service Book maintained relating to his service. After taking time for that purpose, Appellant could not produce such Service Book. However, that would not be a factor to be taken into consideration in the appeal as against the impugned judgment. 8. Learned Standing Counsel arguing for the Appellant submits that so far as issue of maintainability of the suit in the court of the Subordinate Judge, he does not press that issue. Therefore, the findings recorded by the trial court in respect of that issue is not examined any further. 8. Learned Standing Counsel arguing for the Appellant submits that so far as issue of maintainability of the suit in the court of the Subordinate Judge, he does not press that issue. Therefore, the findings recorded by the trial court in respect of that issue is not examined any further. 9. Appellants argue that limitation is a vital issue in a suit and unless the Plaintiff overcomes that hurdle, he cannot get the relief even if the other aspects of the case are proved by him. Unless the Defendants ignore the plea of limitation, the Court is to decide the same strictly in accordance with the provision in the Limitation Act. That is how this Court takes up the issue on limitation. 10. Trial court, on analysis of the documents marked Exts. K and L and the Court's Exhibits, made a comparison and recorded that Plaintiff could not have received the notice as endorsed in Exts. K and L. But, logic advanced thereof by referring to the other entries appears to be flimsy. The trial court has not stated by recording a categorical finding that the signature appearing as against the relevant entries Exts. K and L are not that of the Plaintiff. No. such finding could have been recorded by the trial court, in as much as it is visible to the naked eye about the identity of the handwriting from the other admitted documents available on record together with the signature put in Exts. K and L. Above all, in Ext.13, which was relied on by the Plaintiff and which is a document of the Plaintiff and signed by him, it has been mentioned that: 1 have been Working at Ujwalpur range from beginning of my appointment up to 15.03.1973 but without any information and without any causes the Assistant Soil Conservation Officer, Sundargarh verbally ordered me On 15.03.1973 that your service is No. longer required and you are retrenched from your duty w.e.f. 28.02.1973. Now I am outside of the service. Now I am outside of the service. xx xx "Hence, 1 pray to my higher authority that my case may kindly be considered and 1 may kindly be further engaged of my previous post of 'Bhumi Rakhayak' and my service may kindly be counted from 28.02.1973....'' That document was not at all discussed, which indicates that Plaintiff was aware of the order of termination itself at least by 15.03.1973, and the period of limitation if counted from that date to the date of presentation of the application under Order 33, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, then a period of three years had already been over by 14.03.1976 and, therefore, the suit was clearly barred by time when it was instituted on 16.12.1976. 11. When deciding a case of this nature, No. doubt the Court has to be liberal in favor of an employee of the status of the Plaintiff, but the liberalness cannot go to the extent of ignoring the statutory provision in Limitation Act so as to entertain a time barred claim and to grant a decree. Under such circumstance this Court sets aside the finding on issue No. 7 recorded by the trial court and held that the suit was barred by time. 12. In view of the aforesaid finding, though it is not necessary to address on the rest of the issues, but as the parties have argued, findings are recorded as follows -Allegation of the Plaintiff is that he was given a permanent employment and the trial court has also entertained the claim in that manner. Such a stand is contrary to the evidence adduced by the Plaintiff, i.e., Exts.1 and 6. Grant of increment as in Ext.7 does not change the nature of employment from 'tenure appointment' (for a fixed period) to 'permanent employment'. The intention of the employer, as stated in Ext.P, is not to extend the tenure appointment any further and expressed the same as termination. That does not attract Article 311 of the Constitution of India for conducting inquiry after providing opportunity of hearing. To that extent also the finding of the trial court is wrong. 13. The allegation made by the Plaintiff about bribing Defendant No. 4 is not substantiated through any evidence except making oral assertion in course of the examination-in-chief. That does not attract Article 311 of the Constitution of India for conducting inquiry after providing opportunity of hearing. To that extent also the finding of the trial court is wrong. 13. The allegation made by the Plaintiff about bribing Defendant No. 4 is not substantiated through any evidence except making oral assertion in course of the examination-in-chief. The answer given in the cross-examination about not disclosing or discussing that fact before anybody is clear enough to cast a doubt on the correctness of such a statement. In that respect when D.W.l made his denial statement, there was No. sufficient cross-examination except putting a suggestion. Therefore, in such a case No. other circumstance was available on record to tilt the preponderance of probability in favor of the statement of the Plaintiff or against the statement of the Defendant No. 4. Under such circumstance, it is seen that learned Subordinate Judge proceeded with a biased mind as against the Defendants and it is readable from the narration of facts and the discussion undertaken thereof. Once the Plaintiff has not been able to prove about his valid appointment on a permanent basis which is different from tenure appointment, he could not have asked for arrear salary from March, 1973 and onwards or for reinstatement in service, and therefore on merit also Plaintiff has not made out a case and accordingly the suit should have been dismissed. 14. For the reasons indicated above, the findings recorded by the trial court in support of the decree granted in favor of the Plaintiff is set aside except on the issue of maintainability of the suit in the court of Subordinate Judge, Sundargarh, and in the result the judgment and decree for payment of arrear salary and reinstatement of service and payment of cost is set aside. 15. The First. Appeal is accordingly allowed. Parties are directed to bear their respective cost of litigation all throughout. Hearing fee be assessed at contested scale. Final Result : Allowed