M. S. PARIKH, J. ( 1 ) RULE. Mr. Nanavati learned Advocate for he respondents waives the service of Rule. ( 2 ) THIS Revision is directed against the order dated 22/04/1991 of the learned Joint Dis- trict Judge staying the C. M. A. No. 91 of 1991 under Section 10 of the Code Civil Procedure 1908 The learned Joint District Judge also proposed to make the report of the guardianship application bearing No. C. M. A. No. 9 of the 1991 pending in the Court of the District Judge Jamnagar and the above guardianship application (CMA No. 91 of 1991) being heard and decided by one of the two courts. BRIEF FACTS ( 3 ) THE petitioners wire expired on 12-1-1991 leaving behind two children-Vishal son and Rikta daughter. It is the case of the petitioner that on account of the said demise of his wife the pe- titioner had taken the two children to Jamnagar where the respondents wore having their resi- dence. Respondent No. 1 is the petitioners mother- in -law respondent Nos. 2 3 6 and 7 are the petitioners brothers-in-law and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are his sisters-in-law who after having assured to send back the children after some time did not do so despite the petitioners request letter. As ultimately the respondents refused to send back the children and threatened the petitioner of dire consequences the petitioner was compelled to file the above referred CMA No. 91 of 1991 in the District Court Rajkot. The petitioner also filed the application Exh. 6 for custody of the children during the pendency of the CMA. The petitioner based his case staling various facts touching the welfare of the minor children. ( 4 ) BY his order dated 17/02/1991 below Exh. 6 the learned Judge granted interim custody of the children to the petitioner and appointed the Commissioner for that purpose. In spite of written undertaking to produce the children the respondents failed to do so. The Com- missioner therefore filed his report dated 19-2-91 at Exh. ( 4 ) BY his order dated 17/02/1991 below Exh. 6 the learned Judge granted interim custody of the children to the petitioner and appointed the Commissioner for that purpose. In spite of written undertaking to produce the children the respondents failed to do so. The Com- missioner therefore filed his report dated 19-2-91 at Exh. 11 It is further the case of the petitioner that instead of acting according to their undertaking the respondents preferred A. O. No. 79 of 1991 with C. A. No. 1099 of 1991 on 20-2-91 before this Court against the aforesaid ex parte order dated 17 This Court passed the order in the said proceedings on 27-2-91 and the same needs to be reproduced below: by consent of the learned Advocate Mr. J. R. Nanavati for the appellant and Mr. P M. Thakkar for the respondents the following order is passed: The trial Courts ardor dated 17/02/1991 below Exh. 6 in Civil Misc. Application No. 91 of 1991 on its file will not be enforced executed or acted upon. The trial Court shall decide application Exh. 6 after giving both the sides reasonable opportunity of putting forward their respective cases before it and the appellant i. e. original opponent No. 2 Dilip Jayshankar Joshi shall produce before the trial court minors Vishal and Rikta as and when the trial court ask him to produce them before the court for the purpose of these minors being exam- ined by the court and for whatever legal purposes the trial court may deem their presence neces- sary. Exh. 6-application should be decided by the trial court on lop priority basis regard of course being had to the exigencies of other matters before it. With the above order passed with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties the A. O. and the connected CA No. 1099 of 1991 stands disposed of. Rule issued in the CA is made absolute to the above extent. ( 5 ) BEFORE the above order could be followed up by the learned Joint District Judge the respon- dents moved an application Exh. 35 for obtaining stay under Section 10 of the Code on the ground that the Civil Misc. Application No. 9 of 1991 filed by them in the District Court Jamnagar was prior to point of time. ( 5 ) BEFORE the above order could be followed up by the learned Joint District Judge the respon- dents moved an application Exh. 35 for obtaining stay under Section 10 of the Code on the ground that the Civil Misc. Application No. 9 of 1991 filed by them in the District Court Jamnagar was prior to point of time. The learned Joint District Judge passed the impugned order and hence this revision as stated above. ( 6 ) ON 15-7-91 the following order was passed: in this CRA the order under challenge specifies that the learned Joint District Judge Rajkot would make a report to this Court requesting this court to decide in which of the two court namely the court at Jamnagar and the court at Rajkot the proceedings with regard to the guardi- anship and custody of the minor son Vishal Pradipbhai and minor daughter Rikta Pradipbhai would be heard and decided. The office is directed to place the report alongwith this CRA on 22/07/1991 in case the report has been received by the office. S. O. to 22-7-91. ( 7 ) AFTER the above order was passed Mr. J. R. Nanavati learned Advocate for the respondents appeared. I have heard the learned Advocates for both sides particularly on the question of trans- fer of one of the civil miscellaneous applications pending in two different courts. ( 8 ) SECTION 24 of the Code provides for an appropriate order of transfer being passed bear- ing in mind the circumstances of the particular case. In so far as the present case is concerned there are two guardianship applications pending before two different Courts. Over and above that fact this Court had an occasion to pass an order to take up the application for interim custody of the mirnor children on priority basis. Now since the proceedings in CMA No. 91 of 1991 came to be stayed by the impugned order the order passed by this Court could not be followed up by the trial Court. This is a matter where welfare of the minor children should be a paramount consideration coupled with the fact that the question of interim custody is also pending before the trial Court. This is a matter where welfare of the minor children should be a paramount consideration coupled with the fact that the question of interim custody is also pending before the trial Court. Under these circumstances since the learned Joint District Judge Rajkot has applied his mind to the matter and since the detailed order passed by this Court requires to be followed the District Court Rajkot would be an appropriate forum where both the matters should be placed for hear- ing. It is no doubt true that till up-till now of race has not been able to place the report of the learned Joint District Judge. However as stated above under Section 24 of the Code this Court can suo motu pass an order of transfer and particularly when both the learned Advocates have been heard on the question there is no reason why an appropriate order be not passed. Considering the urgency of the matter considering the welfare of he minor children and considering the fact the this Court directed the learned Joint District Judge at Rajkot to take up the hearing of the interim custody application immediately it would be in he interest of justice that the Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 9 of 1991 pending before the learned District Judge Jamnagar be transferred to the District Court at Rajkot. Following order is therefore passed: ( 9 ) CIVIL Miscellaneous Application No. 9 of 1991 pending before the District Court Jam- nagar is ordered to be transferred forthwith to the District Court Rajkot. ( 10 ) LEARNED Joint District Judge or the District Judge as the case may be is directed to hear both the guardianship applications together. ( 11 ) IF the Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 9 of 1991 is before the learned District Judge or the learned Joint District Judge as the case may be interim custody application be immedi- ately taken up for hearing as directed by this Court as per the order reproduced in the body of this judgment. ( 12 ) THE learned District Judge or the learned Joint District Judge as the case may be is di- rected to give lop priority to both the matters regard being had to the exigencies to other mat- ters before the learned District Judge or the learned Joint District Judge as the case may be. ( 12 ) THE learned District Judge or the learned Joint District Judge as the case may be is di- rected to give lop priority to both the matters regard being had to the exigencies to other mat- ters before the learned District Judge or the learned Joint District Judge as the case may be. ( 13 ) A copy of this judgment is directed to be placed forthwith with the report of the learned Joint District Judge if any or as and when received by this Court. The impugned order of the learned Joint District Judge is quashed and set aside to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. .