JUDGMENT
1. In our opinion the Court below is right. A suit was brought under Section 9'2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for removal of certain trustees of a temple. The case WAS compromised and a decree was made in accordance with the compromise, to the effect that Gaya Din should be the manager of the temple and Ram Chand should be the manager of the temple property. It is said that Gaya Din has been declared insolvent and accordingly an application was made to the District Judge to remove Gaya Din from his office of trustee. The learned Judge has, in our opinion, rightly held that no such application could be made in the Miscellaneous Department. If Gaya Din had committed any act which would entail his removal from the office of trustee, the remedy was a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but no application in the Miscellaneous Department could be made for his removal. The Court has no authority to entertain an application of this kind. The learned Vakil for the appellant contends that the present application was in continuation of the suit which terminated in a compromise and decree. The suit having been decided and a decree made, there could not be a continuance of the suit. The present application cannot be deemed to be an application for execution of the decree. We dismiss the appeal with costs.