JUDGMENT The petitioner claims to be a pujari of a temple by the name of Shri Ram Janki (Shala) located in Ward No. 12, Lahar, Bhind. The grievance of the petitioner is that his grand-father was a pujari. Thereafter, his father was shown as a pujari of the temple referred to above. His further grievance is that the respondent-authorities are not recognising the status of the petitioner as a pujari. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the decision given by this Court in the case reported as Ghanshyamdas and others v. State of M.P. and another, 1995 RN 235, his status is to be recognised. The learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has already filed a civil suit. A copy of the plaint has been placed on the record as annexure R-1. In para 1 of the plaint, a plea has been taken that the present petitioner as pujari is entitled to protect the property of the temple. It has been further pleaded in the plaint that the respondent-authorities are making use of part of the property for creating a path. The respondent filed a written statement. The same has been placed on the record as annexure P-9. It has been specifically pleaded therein that the petitioner is not a pujari. If above be the factual position, then the rights of the petitioner to look after the affairs of the temple in question as pujari would ultimately be determined by the civil Court. The petitioner as already availed of the remedy of filing a suit, therefore, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the State is that it is not a fit case where directions are required to be given under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the above suit is with regard to a different releif. It is further submitted that the claim regarding ownership is not being enforced in the above suit. I am of the opinion that the question as to whether the petitioner is a pujari or not would ultimately be gone into in the above suit. This is because the right of the petitioner to file the civil suit by way of plaint, annexure P-6 is being disputed. I am of the opinion that the question as to whether the petitioner is a pujari or not would ultimately be gone into in the above suit. This is because the right of the petitioner to file the civil suit by way of plaint, annexure P-6 is being disputed. An issue would necessarily has to be framed with regard to the status of the petitioner to file the suit in question. As such, it can safely be said that the petitioner has already availed of the alternate remedy. In my opinion, it would not be apt to interfere in this petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entries in the revenue record have been wrongly made. The petitioner would be at liberty to approach the revenue authorities for correction of the revenue record. If any petition is filed, the same be considered and disposed of as early as possible. The petitioner would also be at liberty to amend the suit and the pleadings taken if these are in any way deficient. The parties would abide by the interim order passed by this Court on 20th December, 1996, for a period of three months. During this period, the petitioner may, if so advised, amend the plaint and if necessary, a notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 if required to be given that be also given. Disposed of accordingly.