Judgment Subhash B. Adi, J. 1. Petitioners are defendants 38 and 39 in the trial Court. They have called in question the order dated 31.01.2012 passed on I.A. No.11 in O.S. No.38/2011 on the file of the Pri. Civil Judge and concurrent charge of I Addl. Civil Judge, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada. 2. Plaintiffs 1 to 77 have filed a suit for declaration declaring that defendants 1 and 2 have ceased to be trustees of defendant N0.3-Temple and for injunction. 3. In the said suit, Defendant Nos.38 and 39 filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 read with Sections 9 and 92 of CPC, inter alia for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit itself is not maintainable in law as the suit is not filed under Section 92 of CPC: 4. The trial Court, after considering the averments in the application, has found that defendants 1 to 37 have not raised any contention with regard to maintainability of the suit and the Temple is not a Hindu Religious’ and Charitable institution, but, it is governed by Trustees appointed under Board order No.3635 dated 03.12.1938. As such, defendant No.3 –Temple does not come under the ambit of Section 92 of CPC, and accordingly, rejected I.A.No.11, as against which, this petition is filed. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that suit as filed by the plaintiffs is against defendant No.3, which is a public religious temple and as such any scheme or any declaration as regard to the trust should be only under Section 92 of CPC, and not in any other suit. 6. No doubt, in case of a public religious temple or a charitable institution, with regard to removal of trustees or management of the Temple or its possession etc., scheme suit is required to be under Section 92 of CPC. However, the material on record shows that this temple is governed by a Board order dated 03.12.1938. If there is a special provision made for this temple under the Board order, certainly as long as such order is valid and in force, temple will have to be governed under the same. Further, the plaintiffs have not described defendant No.3 – Temple as a public religious and charitable institution. It is in these circumstances, application has been rejected by the trial Court. There is no ground to interfere with the impugned order. Further, the plaintiffs have not described defendant No.3 – Temple as a public religious and charitable institution. It is in these circumstances, application has been rejected by the trial Court. There is no ground to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.