Thadani C. J.-This is an application under S. 115, Civil P. C., directed against an order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, U. A. D., dated 2-6-1951, by which he dismissed an application under S. 151,'filed by the petitioner in Title Suit No. 1 of 1947, brought under S. 92, Civil P. C. In that suit, the learned Judge sanc­tioned a scheme on 27-7-1948 by which a managing committee was to function with respect to the property involved. Nearly two years later, on 1-2-1950, the petitioner made an application to the Court alleging that the Secretaries of the mana­ging committee were not functioning properly, and that no notice of the suit had been given to him; he prayed that the committee be dissolved and a fresh scheme be prepared. The learned Judge regarded the application made under S. 151, Civil P. C., as an application for removing the members of the managing committee, and he took the view that such an application was not competent, that the members of the managing committee could be removed only by a suit brought under S. 92, Civil P. C. [2] Mr. Deb who appears for the petitioner con­tends, on the authority of the decisions of the Bombay and the Patna High Courts, that an application under S. 151, Civil P. C., for the removal of a trustee or a member of the managing com­mittee appointed under a scheme sanctioned under S. 92, Civil P. C., is competent. None of the decisions, however, which have been referred to us by Mr. Deb have any applica­tion to the facts of this case. In none of these cases the question involved was the question of removal of a trustee or a member of a managing committee. The case reported in Mahadev v. Govmdrao, A. I. R. 1937 Bom. 124 refers to a case in which the scheme was framed so as to confer powers on the District Judge to suspend or remove any trustee for specific reasons. In the case before us, no such power has been given to the Court while sanctioning the scheme. Similarly the case reported in Chandraprasad v. Jina Bharthi, A. I. R. 1931 Bom. 391 is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the case before us. In the case before us, no such power has been given to the Court while sanctioning the scheme. Similarly the case reported in Chandraprasad v. Jina Bharthi, A. I. R. 1931 Bom. 391 is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the case before us. In the Bombay case, the view taken was that the Court was competent to frame a scheme con­taining within itself the machinery for carrying into effect the object of the scheme, and that such a scheme could be amended or modified by an application under S. 151, Civil P. C. No reference was made to the removal of a trustee. In the case reported in Kali Prasad v. Harihar Nath, A. I. R. 1935 Pat. 88, the question arose as to the revision of the scheme, and not as to the remo­val of a trustee or a member of the managing com­mittee. It is true that in the Patna case, the 1952 Ass./23 & 24 petitioner was permitted to participate in the management of the scheme sanctioned, but that is not the prayer before us. The prayer before us, is that the members of the managing committee be removed and a fresh scheme prepared. This, we think, can only be done by a suit under S. 92, Civil P. C. [3] We do not think that in this case the lear­ned Judge has assumed jurisdiction which he did not possess or failed to exercise jurisdiction which he possessed, or that he has acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with material irre­gularity. [4] The result is that the petition is dismissed with costs. [5] The rule is discharged. [6] Deka J.-I agree. Rule discharged.