Interlocutory applications filed in a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, after the settling of scheme, were returned by the court, as 'lacking jurisdiction'. The said order is under challenge in this Original Petition.

2. Heard Sri. B. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.P. Dandapani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. O.S. No.7/2002 was a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On 29.09.2007, decree was passed settling the scheme. Challenging the said decree, there was an appeal before this Court as R.F.A. No.6/2008. This Court confirmed the decree passed by the trial court. The SLP filed against the judgment was dismissed by the Apex Court.

4. Thereafter, alleging that out of the three temples situated in the temple compound, one of the temples namely, Yogeeswara Temple, was demolished, the petitioner along with another filed I.A. No.124/14 with the following prayers :

(1) To prohibit further demolishing of structures in the temple compound.

(2) To restore Yogeeswara Temple at the same place under court supervision.

(3) For removal of the then members of the Administrative Committee.

The application was allowed by the District Court and Official Receiver was appointed for management and administration of the temple. The order on I.A. No.124/14 was challenged before this Court in FAO 158/14. On 02.12.2014, a judgment was delivered in the appeal, on consent between the parties. The directions therein related to conduct of election, for the construction of the “Yogeeswara Temple” after conducting “Ashtamangalya Prasnam” and also regarding accounting of money. “Ashtamangalya Prasnam” was to be conducted within a period of one month from the date of judgment. As per order dated 17.12.2014, the period was extended by one month from 02.01.2015.

5. It appears that, “Ashtamangalya Deva Prasnam” suggested the name of the temple be changed to “Sree Saravana Bhava Temple, Eravipuram”. Thereafter, notification for conduct of election was published. The petitioner filed I.A. No.1353/2015 seeking the following reliefs :

(1) To declare the result of “Ashtamangalya Deva Prasnam” as null and void.

(2) To declare that the members of the earlier Administrative Committee who were removed as per the order on I.A. No.124/14 are incompetent to submit the nominations for a reasonable period.

(3) To remove the Official Receiver from the post of Receiver of the Temple and to appoint a Senior Advocate as the Receiver.

6. In the meanwhile, in terms of the judgment in FAO 158/14, elections were conducted to the Managing Committee. The Official Receiver gave charge to the new committee. The petitioner filed I.A. No.1581/15 seeking the following reliefs:

(1) Injunction from demolishing any structures in the temple compound.

(2) Injunction from shifting the site of the temple.

(3) Injunction from changing the name of the temple from “Vanchiyil Sree Saravana Kshetram, Eravipuram”, to “Sree Saravana Bhava Kshethram” on the strength of Ashtamangala Deva Prasnam.

7. Pending the same, the elected President and Secretary filed I.A. No.12/17 seeking permission to change the name of the temple to “Eravipuram Sree Saravana Bhava Temple” based on the General Body decision and also seeking permission to construct temple in accordance with the plan and estimate approved by the General Body. As per the impugned order, the court below held the interlocutory applications to be not maintainable.

8. The question that arises for determination is whether applications are maintainable in a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure after a scheme is settled.

9. A suit under Section 92 is considered analogous to an Administration Suit. The scheme that is formulated may itself provide that directions could be sought for from the court for the purpose of effectively carrying out the scheme. In Raje Anandrao v. Shamrao and Others [AIR 1961 SC 1206], the Apex Court upheld the provision in a s