ORDER : This Court, after due consideration of the submissions made by the respective parties, by order dated 12.04.2017, disposed of the revision petition with the following directions:- ''(i) The fourth phase of the election shall be conducted afresh after making publication for the election on 13.04.2017. The filing of nomination shall be closed by 3.00 p.m., on 19.04.2017. The scrutiny of nomination shall be done on the same day by 4.00 p.m. The last date for withdrawal of nomination shall be on 20.04.2017 and if there is any contest, the election shall be conducted on 23.04.2017 from 11.00 a.m. to 03.00 p.m. (ii) The prospective contestants shall collect the nomination papers from the Court Commissioner Mr. S. Dharmaraj. (iii) The list of voters shall be made public by publishing it in the concerned Church by the Court Commissioner. (iv) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by convention always election is to be conducted at Cathedral Church at Palayamkottai. The same convention may continue. (v) Mr. H. Thayumanaswamy, learned counsel is requested to supervise the smooth conduct of the election process and he shall submit the report in this regard to this Court on 25.04.2017. Insofar as the post of Treasurer is concerned, the church committee constituted by Bishop shall give its proposal by 22.04.2017 to the Commissioner. (vi) The remuneration for the commissioner is fixed at Rs.35,000/- and shall be paid to Mr. M. Thayumanaswamy, (9443694354), No.25, Law Chambers, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai, by the revision petitioner. Since there is some apprehension expressed across the Bar that in the interregnum period, the parties may take certain major policy decisions, in order to avoid any multiplicity of dispute, it is directed that the parties who are the helm of affairs at present shall not take any major policy decisions till 25.04.2017.'' 2. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 12.04.2017, the Commissioner Mr. H. Thayumanaswamy, Advocate appointed to supervise the conduct of the election process, has submitted his report along with the details of the candidates elected in the 4th phase of election for the Diocesan Council of Tirunelveli Diocese. 3. One Pitchaiah David filed CMP (MD) Nos. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 12.04.2017, the Commissioner Mr. H. Thayumanaswamy, Advocate appointed to supervise the conduct of the election process, has submitted his report along with the details of the candidates elected in the 4th phase of election for the Diocesan Council of Tirunelveli Diocese. 3. One Pitchaiah David filed CMP (MD) Nos. 4026 to 4028 of 2017, to implead himself in the revision; to remove the Commissioner and to appoint a new Commissioner and also to direct the Court Commissioner to conduct election after finalising proper and eligible voters, alleging that there was error in the voters list and violation of the Election Rules of the Diocese in publishing the voters list. 4. One Soundara Pandian also filed CMP (MD) No. 4350 of 2017 seeking to implead himself in the revision petition, alleging that without considering his representation seeking to include him in the voters list, the Commissioner has conducted the 4th phase election for the Diocesan Council of Tirunelveli Diocese, without publishing the updated voters list before such election. In CMP SR (MD) No. 19225/17, he has also sought for a direction to the Commissioner not to publish the result of the 4th phase election. 5. It is represented by the counsel for the petitioner that the election was conducted despite pointing out inclusion of ineligible voters and exclusion of eligible voters. 6. The counsel for the respondents submits that the voters list was published as per the direction of this Court and the list was prepared pursuant to the earlier order of the Trial Court which has ordered for election in a phased manner. The petitioners in CMP (MD) Nos. 4026 to 4028 and 4350 of 2017 are not parties aggrieved and have no locus to get themselves impleaded in this revision. 7. The copy of the Commissioner report has been served to the revision petitioner as well as the respondents herein. 8. The main contention in the revision petition was that without giving notice, in a hasty manner election was conducted on 10.04.2017 and therefore, the same has to be set aside and fresh election should be conducted after giving sufficient time for conducting election. In the said context, this Court on 12.04.2017, after hearing both sides and on a broad consensus passed order fixing schedule for election under the supervision of Mr. H. Thayumanaswamy, Advocate. 9. In the said context, this Court on 12.04.2017, after hearing both sides and on a broad consensus passed order fixing schedule for election under the supervision of Mr. H. Thayumanaswamy, Advocate. 9. When the matter was taken up today, it was represented by the counsel appearing for the petitioner in CMP(MD)Nos.4026 to 4028 of 2017 that the petitioner/Pitchaiah David in these miscellaneous petitions has to be impleaded in the revision petition to point out the commission and omission of the Advocate Commissioner in conducting the 4th phase election. In addition to that, there is also a prayer to remove the Court Commissioner and to appoint a new Commissioner to conduct election. So also, the counsel for the petitioner in CMP(MD)No.4350 of 2017 submits that the Commissioner without publishing the updated voters list, conducted the 4th phase of election, hence, the petitioner/Soundara Pandian in this miscellaneous petition is to be impleaded. 10. The 4th phase of election has been concluded under the supervision of the Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Court. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that result for the 4th phase election has already been published and the report of the Commissioner is also been served to the parties. So, nothing more survives in these civil miscellaneous petitions and therefore, there is no necessity to entertain CMP (MD) Nos. 4026 to 4028 and 4350 of 2017 and CMP.SR(MD)No.19225 of 2017. Any grievance regarding the result of the 4th phase election, the aggrieved parties are at liberty to approach the Trial Court where the suit is pending and seek redressal. With the above observation, this Civil Revision Petition is closed as no further order is required to be passed now. No costs. Consequently, CMP (MD) No. 3649 of 2017 is closed and CMP (MD) Nos. 4026 to 4028 and 4350 of 2017 and CRP SR (MD) No. 19225 of 2017 are dismissed.