JUDGMENT 1. - By way of filing present misc. appeal, appellant is challenging the order dated 20.06.2009 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur in Civil Case No. 21/2008, whereby, the application filed by the appellant under Section 7 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 was rejected on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. 2. In this case, on 12th October, 2009 while issuing notice to respondent No. 2, the following order was passed by this Court: "Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the order sent by the Court regarding production of the children namely Rahul and Neha, said to be lodged at Orphanage before respondent No. 2 - Incharge-Onkar Nanda Trust, Hripur Kalan, Dehradun (Uttranchal) was torn out in the present of the appellant and his counsel, but in this regard, there is no affidavit or any other document on record. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the notice sent to respondent No. 2 has also been received with an endorsement that he clearly refused to accept the notice, therefore, the notice was pasted on the notice board. In view of the submission made by learned Counsel for the appellant and the endorsement made on the notice, let fresh notice be issued to the respondent No. 2 - Incharge-Onkar nanda Trust, Hripur Kalan, Dehradun (Uttranchal) and may be given 'dasti' to learned Counsel for the appellant, who may produce the same before the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur. The Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur will send a Special Messenger not below the rank of Sub Inspector for getting the notice served through the Superintendent of Police, Dehrad u n (Uttaranchal). The Superintendent of Police, Dehradun (Uttaranchal) is also directed to ensure that the notice is served on the respondent No. 2 - Incharge-Onkar Nanda Trust, Hripur Kalan, Dehradun (Uttranchal) and the children namely Rahul and Neha are produced before this Court on 04th November, 2009. Put up on 04th November, 2009" 3. In pursuance of the order dated 12th October, 2009 the children were produced before this Court on 04th November, 2009 and on that date the following order was passed: "Heard learned Counsel for the parties. In compliance to the order of this Court dated 12.10.2009, the children namely Rahul and Neha, who both are minor, have been brought today before this Court by Mr. Manish Dave, Sub-Inspector of Police Station Pratapnagar, Jodhpur. In compliance to the order of this Court dated 12.10.2009, the children namely Rahul and Neha, who both are minor, have been brought today before this Court by Mr. Manish Dave, Sub-Inspector of Police Station Pratapnagar, Jodhpur. Upon asking to the Sub-Inspector, he submits that he has brought these two minor children from Bhagirathi Vidhalaya, Hripur Kalan, Dehradun (Uttranchal). Today, maternal grant-father namely Manohar, who is the appellant in this case along with his wife namely Kamla Devi are present before this Court and they have claimed the custody of the children. On the contrary, learned Counsel Mr. M.K. Trivedi submits that the court of learned Addl. District Judge, Thane has passed the order for the custody of the children to Manu Govindram Tekchandani, who is said to be the brother in distant relation of the children, but he has filed no application in this regard. Learned Counsel Mr. M.K. Trivedi submits that he will file the application tomorrow itself. On filing of the application, let copy of the same be given to learned Counsel for the appellant. Meanwhile, both the children namely Rahul and Neha shall remain with their maternal grand-father namely Manohar, who is appellant in this case and maternal grand-mother namely Kamla Devi, as per their desire. 4. After passing of order dated 04th November, 2009 an application under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC was filed on 05th November, 2009 by one Manu Gobindram Tekchandani to implead him as a party in the appeal. Along with said application, a certificate of Guardianship issued by the Additional District Judge, Thane dated 09th April, 2007 passed in M.A. No. 308/2006 on 07th April, 2007 was also filed. After perusal of the averments made in the application, so also, the certificate issued by the competent court, the application was allowed and applicant was imp-leaded as a party. Thereafter, amended cause title has been filed by the appellant, which is, on record. 5. Today, after hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that once a guardianship certificate has been issued by the competent court in favour of applicant, then appellant is required to challenge the said certificate issued by the Additional District Judge, Thane State of Maharashtra before the appellate forum in the State of Maharashtra. 5. Today, after hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that once a guardianship certificate has been issued by the competent court in favour of applicant, then appellant is required to challenge the said certificate issued by the Additional District Judge, Thane State of Maharashtra before the appellate forum in the State of Maharashtra. We cannot entertain or adjudicate the certificate issued in favour of applicant Manu Gobindram Tekchandani because this Court has no territorial jurisdiction. 6. In this view of the matter, no error has been committed by the Judge, Family Court while dismissing the application on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. The competent court has already issued a guardianship certificate in favour of applicant. If appellant is having any grievance against the said certificate, then he is required to challenge the said certificate before the competent appellate court having territorial jurisdiction. 7. At this juncture, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submits that he may be permitted to challenge the said certificate before the competent appellate court and the order passed by this Court in this appeal for giving custody of both the children to the appellant on 04th November, 2009 may be kept intact till the adjudication made by the competent appellate court. 8. We are of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the Family Court does not require any interference, but we cannot loose sight that in this appeal vide order dated 04th November, 2009, the custody of children was given to the appellant and now under the said order, children are pursuing their studies at Jodhpur, therefore, in the interest of justice although we are dismissing this appeal and granting liberty to the appellant to challenge the guardianship certificate issued in favour of the applicant-respondent No. 3, but till three months from today the order dated 04th November, 2009 passed by this Court for the purpose of custody of children in favour of appellant shall remain in force. It is also made clear that if no proceedings will be initiated by the appellant to challenge the certificate of guardianship within three months, then respondent No. 3 will be entitled to get custody of the children.Appeal dismissed. *******