1. Since the order calling for findings from the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin was made by this Court, the local area in which the suit arose has been transferred to the Ramnad District and the question is whether the effect of such transfer is by operation of law to divest the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin of jurisdiction to return the findings and to confer such jurisdiction on the Rarnnad Court. In Panduranga Mudaliyar v. Vylhilinga Reddi 30 M. 537 : 2 M.L.T. 466; 17 M.L.J. 417, to which one of us was a party, the Court was disposed to take the view that such a transfer would not divest the Original Court of jurisdiction over pending suits. The learned Advocate-General, to whom weare much indebted has now called our attention to conflicting rulings of American State Courts on the point. See State v. Lackey 2 (2 Cart) 285; Lindsay v. M.C. Cornak 2 A.K. Marsh. 229 : 12 All. M. Dec. 387; Perkins v. Pattern 10 Ga. 241. Metanghton v. Bank of Potamac 7 Grat 68, quoted in Cols. 1943, 1945, 2030 and 2032 of Vol. 13 of the American Digest (Country Edition; and remarks on p. 714 of Vol. II of the Encyclopaedia of Law and Procedure. The question is not only one of considerable diffi