JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners have moved this application purporting to be u/O. 39 R. 2(A) CPC r/w Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act alleging disobedience committed by the non-petitioner of the order passed by this Court on 22.2.1993 in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 242 of 1992 and clarified by order dated 22.3.1994 in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 36 of 1994. The dispute between the parties lies in small compass. The dispute is with regard to the right to perform Pooja and receipt of offerings in the temple of Riktiya Bharooji Maharaj platform. The Pooja was performed by Shri Hukam Singh, former poojari of the temple in question. The petitioners are the daughter; son-in-law and the widow of late Shri Hukam Singh. The claim is exercised by the widow of Hukam Singh as legal representative of the said Hukam Singh. The non-petitioner claims to be the adopted son of Hukam Singh and he has laid claim to the above rights on that basis. A dispute arose between the parties. The petitioner filed a civil suit against the non-petitioner in the Court of Civil Judge, Ratangarh for declaration and grant of an injunction. In that suit an application for temporary injunction was also made. The non-petitioner in that suit brought on record the decree granted by the Civil Judge, Ratangarh on 31.5.1988 in civil original suit no. 23/1984 between Ramdev Singh and Lachhman Singh. The above suit was dismissed but the counter claim of the non-petitioner was decreed. After hearing both the parties, the temporary injunction was granted by the learned Civil Judge, Ratangarh on 7.12.1991 which was also upheld by the appellate Court. However, in the revision petition filed by the non-petitioner Lachhrnan Singh v. Smt. Suraj Kanwar & Ors., S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 242/1992 , the learned single Judge of this Court passed the following orders in terms of the agreement arrived at between the parties:- 1. The defendant, Lachhman Singh may be allowed to carry out the worship and manage the temple of Riktiya Bharooji Maharaj platform well and Chad (Dhana); 2. The defendant, Lachhman Singh may be allowed to carry out the worship and manage the temple of Riktiya Bharooji Maharaj platform well and Chad (Dhana); 2. The offerings at the place of worship shall be collected by defendant, Lachhman Singh in the presence of plaintiffs, Suraj Kanwar and Mahaveer Singh and Smt. Rasal Kanwar wife of Hukam Singh or their representatives, if the same is nominated by them and the same shall be divided 1/2 to 1/2 between defendant Lachhman on the one side and the plaintiffs & Rasal Kanwar wife of Hukam Singh taken together on the other side; 3. That account of the division of cash and valuables will be submitted to the trial Court every month by both the parties by 15th of each month. 2. Subsequently, the petitioners moved an application u/O. 39 R. 2(A) CPC before the trial Court which was rejected by the learned Munsif on 2.11.1993. Against the above order, the petitioner moved a revision petition before this Court (221/1994). This revision petition came to be disposed of on 22.3.1994 by the learned single Judge of this High Court. 3. It is clear that by the order dated 22.3.1994, this Court directed that if any dispute arose between the parties regarding the division of chadhava, the same can be decided by the trial Court after making due inquiry. If any clarification/ modification of the order dated 12.2.1993 or complaint of any disobedience was made, the aggrieved party can move this Court. 4. It is in this context that the petitioners have alleged that in blatant violation of the order of this Court dated 12.2.1993, the non-petitioner performed Pooja but did not divide the offerings as per direction of the Court 1/2 to 1/2. In order to take this advantage, the non-petitioner showed inflated expenses in managing the above temple. By showing inflated figures of the expenses, the non-petitioner attempted, to grab the bulk of the amount of offerings. It was also alleged that the non-petitioner did not submit accounts of the offerings as directed in the above order. It was further alleged that the non-petitioner dishonestly making attempts to get the above temple registered under the Devsthan Act and also moved an application in which he showed the annual expenses to the tune of Rs. 30,000/-. 5. It was also alleged that the non-petitioner did not submit accounts of the offerings as directed in the above order. It was further alleged that the non-petitioner dishonestly making attempts to get the above temple registered under the Devsthan Act and also moved an application in which he showed the annual expenses to the tune of Rs. 30,000/-. 5. The application was stoutly resisted by the non-petitioner on the ground that non-petitioner has correctly submitted the accounts of necessary expanses for managing the temple. Moreover, if the petitioner contested the correctness of the accounts submitted by the non-petitioner, the course open to them was to agitate the matter before the trial Court as directed by the subsequent order passed by this Court on 22.3.1994. It was averred that the non-petitioner has got the highest regard for the Court and he considers his pious duty to obey the order of the Court. He admitted that there was some lapse on his part in not submitting the accounts in time. The explanation of the non-petitioner was that during the relevant time, the non-petitioner was busy round the clock in managing the temple. There was a great rush of pilgrims. He, therefore, could not find time for preparing the accounts and submit the same in time. The non- petitioner tendered his apology and thereafter he has been submitting the accounts in the trial Court punctually. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the either side. The main grievance made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the non-petitioner is not stating the correct receipts of the offerings and that the share of the petitioners has been reduced miserably by showing false expenses in the management of the temple. According to the learned counsel the above order did not authorise the non-petitioner to claim expenses and to deduct the same from the offerings/receipts at the time of the Pooja. By claiming the expenses, the net receipts of the petitioners have been considerably reduced. He also made a complaint that the non- petitioner intends to grab the whole temple and making efforts to get it registered under the Rajasthan Devsthan Act. An application has also been filed by the non-petitioner in which the annual expenses of the temple have been shown to be Rs. 30,000/-. 7. He also made a complaint that the non- petitioner intends to grab the whole temple and making efforts to get it registered under the Rajasthan Devsthan Act. An application has also been filed by the non-petitioner in which the annual expenses of the temple have been shown to be Rs. 30,000/-. 7. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner has submitted that the crux of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the non-petitioner is claiming huge expenses in managing the affairs of the temple and thereby depriving the petitioner of the legitimate receipts. According to the learned counsel these disputes are referable to the trial Court as directed by this Court in the second order dated 22.3.1994. Instead of agitating the matter at the trial Court, the petitioners have filed this petition which is totally misconceived and non-maintainable. If the petitioners challenged the expenses in managing the affairs of the temple, again the petitioner ought to have moved this Court for modifying the above order. 8. I have considered the rival contentions. I find substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the non-petitioner. A perusal of the grounds taken by the petitioner in the petition, it is more than clear that the petitioner are making serious grievance about the inadequate receipts shown due to them by the non-petitioner. The main grievance is with regard to the inflated figure of expenses which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the non-petitioner was not allowed to claim. Regarding the correctness of the receipts, the dispute ought to have been raised by the petitioner before the trial Court as directed by this Court in the order passed on 22.3.1994. However, reasonable expenses are inalienable in the management of the temple. The question whether the expenses shown by the petitioners are reasonable and correct, the same can be agitated before the trial Court. 9. For the above reasons, I do not find any case made out by the petitioner for contempt of Court committed by the non-petitioner. There is no force in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******