J.B. Pardiwala, J.

This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code') is at the instance of the original defendants and is directed against the judgment and order dated 28th July 2017 passed by the 12th Additional District Judge, Vadodara, in the Regular Appeal No. 87 of 2016 arising from the judgment and decree passed by the 12th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara, dated 28th October 2016 in the Special Summary Suit No. 40 of 2007 (converted to Regular Money Suit No. 761 of 2016).

2. It appears from the materials on record that the respondent herein - original plaintiff filed a Special Summary Suit No.40 of 2007 in the court of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Vadodara, for recovery of money to the tune of Rs. 2,75,000.00. In view of the order dated 26th October 2016 passed by the 12th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara, the same came to be converted to Regular Money Suit No.761 of 2016. The appellants herein - original defendants appeared before the trial court and contested the suit by filing their written statement vide Exh.15. The trial court framed the following issues :

"[1] Whether the plaintiff proves that he had given Rs. 1,00,000.00 in cash on 5.1.2005 and Rs. 1,00,000.00 in cash on 10.1.2005 to the defendant nos.1 and 2 in lieu thereof the defendants had issued two promissory notes to the plaintiff ?

[2] Whether defendants prove that their signatures and thumb impressions were obtained on blank forms and on blank promissory notes ?

[3] Whether the plaint of the plaintiff is barred by Limitation ?

[4] Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief’s as prayed for in the plaint ?

[5] What order and decree ?"

3. The issues framed by the court below came to be answered as under :

"[1] In the affirmative.

[2] In the negative.

[3] In the negative.

[4] Party in the affirmative.

[5] As per final order."

4. The trial court, upon final adjudication of the controversy between the parties and upon appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence, partly allowed the suit and passed a decree of recovery of Rs. 2 lac from the defendants at the rate of 9% interest from the date of filing of the suit.

5. The appellants herein - original defendants, being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, preferred the Regular Appeal No. 87 of 2016 in the District Court at Vadodara.

6. The lower appellate court, upon re-appreciation of the entire oral as well as documentary evidence, thought fit to affirm the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and thereby dismissed the appeal.

7. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the lower appellate court dismissing the appeal, the appellants - original defendants are here before this Court with this Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code.

8. The following questions have been formulated as the substantial questions of law in the memorandum of the second appeal :

"a. Whether the learned 12th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara was not having jurisdiction to hear and decide the Suit on account of Provincial Small Cause Courts (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 2015, which provides that all suits and applications of civil nature wherein the subject matter exceeds an amount of value of Rs. 2 lac but does not exceed Rs. 10 lac pending in the District Court immediately before the commencement of Provincial Small Cause Courts (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 2015 shall after such commencement, stand transferred to and can be disposed of by the Judge, Small Cause Court within the local limits of his ordinary jurisdiction and as the subject matter of the present Civil Suit is Rs. 2,75,000/- at the commencement of the said amendment Act ?

b. Whether both the Courts below have committed an error in not considering that no documentary evidence is produced by the respondent - plaintiff to show that Rs. 1 lac and Rs. 1 lac were on hand on alleged date as the pension amount referred in document below