A transferred admitted first appeal retains its original status and is not barred by limitation.

The appellants challenged the judgment and decree dated 26 March 1984 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Himmatnagar, in Special Civil Suit No. 21 of 1981 by filing First Appeal No. 1706 of 1984 before the Gujarat High Court.

The appeal was registered as a regular First Appeal and was subsequently transferred to the concerned District Court under Section 30(3) of the Gujarat Civil Courts Act, 2005, pursuant to the High Court’s order dated 17 August 2005.

After transfer, it was renumbered as Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2005.

The Additional District Judge, Sabarkantha at Modasa, dismissed the appeal on 29 January 2009 as barred by limitation, despite the appellants’ contention that it was a transferred appeal and not a fresh appeal.

The State challenged that decision under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Whether the First Appellate Court erred in dismissing Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2005 on the ground of limitation?

Whether an appeal that had been admitted and registered as a regular First Appeal by the High Court, and thereafter transferred to the District Court under Section 30(3) of the Gujarat Civil Courts Act, 2005, was required to be treated as a timely transferred appeal rather than as a fresh appeal subject to limitation?

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, concerning substantial questions of law.

Section 30(3) of the Gujarat Civil Courts Act, 2005 authorises the transfer of pending appeals from the High Court to the competent District Court consequent upon the statutory allocation of appellate jurisdiction.

The governing principle applied was that a pending appeal transferred by operation of law retains its original character and is not converted into a fresh appeal merely because it receives a new number in the transferee court.

The Court further reasoned that, since the appeal had been admitted and registered as a regular First Appeal by the High Court, it could not subsequently be treated as a fresh, time-barred appeal.

The High Court found that First Appeal No. 1706 of 1984 had already been instituted, admitted, and registered as a regular appeal before being transferred under Section 30(3) of the 2005 Act.

Its renumbering as Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2005 was merely administrative and did not alter its legal identity or date of institution.

The District Court therefore erred in treating the matter as a fresh appeal and in requiring a separate application for condonation of delay.

The Court characterised the First Appellate Court’s approach as hyper-technical and held that the transferred appeal had to be decided on merits.

The judgment and decree dated 29 January 2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sabarkantha at Modasa, were quashed and set aside.

The appeal was restored to the original file and remanded to the Appellate Court for fresh adjudication on merits after providing an opportunity to all concerned parties.

The Appellate Court was requested to decide the matter expeditiously, considering that the suit originated in 1981 and the original appeal was filed in 1984.