Judgment : VINOD K.SHARMA, J., 1. The applicants have filed this application in C.S.No.68 of 1995, which was finally disposed off on 03.11.1995, with prayer for grant of interim injunction, restraining respondents from removing, replacing or erasing the stone Tablet or part thereof, comprising of the names of the donors / trustees inscribed thereon. 2. The stone Tablets are implanted to be affixed at Shri Selva Vinayagar Temple. C.S.No.68 ofd 1995 was filed by one T.Durai Babu and another for removal of trustees, i.e. defendant nos.3 to 7 in the original suit. Prayer was also made for framing of a scheme of management appended to three temples. 3. The suit was disposed off finally on 03.11.1995, by the Honble Division Bench of this Court, by framing a Scheme of Management for appointment of Trustees. The Honble Division Bench also appointed a Receiver to conduct the election. 4. This application is a classic example of misuse of process of this Court. It is not understood how an interim application for grant of injunction can be filed in a suit, which stood disposed off on 03.11.1995. Parties in this application and the suit are also different. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants, in support of this application, vehemently contended that as the Scheme of Management and appointment of Trustees was framed by this Court in C.S.No.68 of 1995, the application, for interim injunction by the parties aggrieved by any action of trustees, would lie in this Court only. 6. This contention is totally misconceived. This Court, in exercise of power under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure had framed a scheme of management and appointment of Trustees. After disposal of the suit, no application, as the one framed, would be competent in the Court. 7. This Court, merely by framing a scheme, does not get any administrative control or regulatory control over Trustees appointed under the scheme to regulate their future working. 8. Any party aggrieved by the action of the Trustees, who are not a Trust or management of the Temple can give fresh cause of action to maintain the suit, but no application, like the one, filed by the applicants, is competent in this Courrt. 9. 8. Any party aggrieved by the action of the Trustees, who are not a Trust or management of the Temple can give fresh cause of action to maintain the suit, but no application, like the one, filed by the applicants, is competent in this Courrt. 9. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the Board of Trustees of the Temple had earlier permitted fixing of stone Tablets, displaying names of the donors / Trustees, but subsequently, they are trying to remove it, which is not allowed. 10. This contention again is not sustainable in law, as the violation of action of the Trustees cannot relate back to the filing of suit nor it would have any concern with the decree passed by this Court. The applicants will have to make out a case to challenge the action, as interlocutory application can deal with the interim prayers, pending the suit. 11. It is well settled law that the relief, which cannot be finally granted, while passing a final decree, cannot be granted by way of interim relief. Interestingly, in this case, there is no final relief to be granted, as the suit itself stood decreed as back as on 03.11.1995. 12. Consequently, this application, being misconceived and misuse of process of Court, is ordered to be dismissed. No costs.