V. Chitambaresh, J.

1. Is a suit maintainable for modification of a scheme already settled by court for the administration of a private religious trust? This is the interesting question that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. The first defendant by name 'Elampalloor Devaswom Trust' is conceded by the parties to the suit to be a private religious trust. Therefore the provisions of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not ipso facto apply even though the principles can be extended. The scheme for administration of the trust had been settled in O.S. No. 280/1997-Sub Court, Kollam. There was a subsequent suit for modification of the said scheme in O.S. No. 408/1981 on the file of the same court. But the suit was dismissed and the decree is impugned in A.S. No. 100/2005-District court, Kollam which is stated to be pending. The present suit in O.S. No. 273/2011-Sub court, Kollam has been filed by persons who were not eo-nominee parties to the earlier two suits. The principal prayer is for modification of the scheme settled as early as on 24.11.1958 in O.S. No. 280/1957. The other prayers in this suit are for accounting by the trustees and for their removal for breach of trust.

3. The second defendant who is the convenor of the trust raised a preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of the suit. His contentions were two fold and they are as follows:

(i) The remedy, if any, of the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 273/2011 is to file appropriate applications in O.S. No. 280/1957 itself wherein modification of the scheme can very well be considered by court.

(ii) O.S. No. 273/2011 is barred by the principles of resjudicata in view of Explanation VI to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the parties are governed by the decree in O.S. No. 280/1957.

4. The plaintiffs on the other hand contended that the scheme settled in O.S. No. 280/1957 does not enable any of the aggrieved parties to file applications. It is also contended that the plaintiffs are not parties to the earlier two suits for the doctrine of resjudicata to operate. The plaintiffs reiterate that the entire fabric of the scheme already settled has to be altered for which a new suit is necessary. The present suit has been filed on an altogether different cause of action which was not present when the earlier suits were filed. The plaintiffs in short maintained that the suit in O.S. No. 273/2011 for modification of the scheme settled in O.S. No. 280/1957 and for ancillary reliefs is maintainable.

5. The second defendant had filed I.A. No. 4969/2011 in O.S. No. 273/2011 under Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This was for the purpose of considering the maintainability of the suit on the grounds stated supra as a preliminary issue. The court below has held that the suit is maintainable which is challenged by the second defendant in this Civil Revision Petition. I have heard Mr. P.B. Suresh Kumar, Senior Advocate on behalf of the revision petitioner. I have also heard Mr. S. Krishnanunni, Senior Advocate who had lodged a caveat on behalf of the respondent in the Civil Revision Petition.

6. True it is that a modification of a scheme settled can be had by an application made under the relevant clauses of the scheme without the necessity of a fresh suit. The suit for settlement of a scheme is analogous to an administration suit and therefore applications can be filed if the modification is for the purpose of administration. The law in this regard has been laid down in Raje Anandrao Vs. Shamrao [AIR 1961 SC 1206]. Such remedy can be resorted to even if there is no express provision in the scheme as held in Elias Vs. Elias [1986 KLT 72]. But does it mean that a fresh suit for modification of a scheme cannot be filed under any circumstance whatsoever? The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 273/2011 have averred that the existing scheme is not fool proof to protect the int