of proceedings, with the Transferor Court retaining some jurisdiction inspite of transfer and confusion prevailing; (iv) Subbiah Vs. Muthuswamy AIR 1984 Mad 206 holding that an application for review of an order, even if passed by the Transferor Court, lies before the Transferee Court and not before the Transferor Court; (v) Chellath Vasu Vs. Pathootty Umma 1990 SCC OnLine Ker 97 (DB) holding that if inspite of change by law of the fora before which appeal lies, applying the principle that the right of appeal vests on the date of institution of the original proceedings, appeals continue to lie before the fora which had been denuded of appellate power, there will simultaneously be two sets of appellate authorities and which was not found to be contemplated by the law; a distinction was made between cases of jurisdiction of Appellate Court in the existing hierarchy of courts and cases where specific appellate fora had been created; it was held that law was empowered to change the appellate fora and the appellate fora which had been so denuded of appellate power loses jurisdiction and cannot continue to entertain appeals against orders made in proceedings which were originally filed before such change in law; (vi) Peoples Union for Human Rights Vs. Union of India 1991 SCC OnLine Gau 31 (Full Bench) holding that the decision of the Delhi High Court, from which the proceedings were transferred to that Court, would continue to bind the Gauhati High Court as it would have continued to bind the Delhi High Court if the proceedings had not been transferred; (vii) Devaki Vs. Chandrika AIR 1998 Ker 198 holding that after the transfer of proceedings under Section 7&8 of the Family Courts Act, it was the Family Court alone which had jurisdiction to entertain an application for setting aside an order of dismissal in default or of proceeding ex parte , of the Court from which
