Indira’s lawyer, Rajesh Nagarajan, revealed the date when contacted by reporters after the case management, which was conducted online before High Court deputy registrar Idamasliza Maarof today.

He said the court would also hear on the same day his client’s application for the IGP to give written answers to 48 questions regarding the investigation into her Muslim convert ex-husband, who had absconded with their youngest daughter.

“Parties are required to file the written submission for both applications on March 23 and the reply on April 6,” he added.

On Jan 11 last year, Indira, 46, filed an application for a court order to compel the IGP to answer the 48 questions in writing, through an affidavit, in accordance with Rule 26 of the Rules of Court 2012.

In the application, Indira, among others, requested the IGP to answer questions pertaining to the investigation, including the location of her ex-husband, Muhammad Riduan Abdullah, formerly known as K Patmanathan, who is alleged to be in southern Thailand.

She named the IGP, police, home ministry and government as defendants in the suit filed in October last year.

In her statement of claim, Indira claimed the IGP had deliberately and negligently ignored the mandamus order from the Federal Court and failed to investigate or take appropriate action to return her daughter, Prasana Diksa, to her.

She claimed that all the defendants had played their roles in making decisions or ordering the police to execute the committal warrant against Riduan as ordered by the Federal Court on April 29, 2016.

She claimed that the behaviour of all the defendants had directly caused her separation from her youngest daughter, who is now 12, to continue until today and that their behaviour had also caused Riduan to flee.

She is seeking general, aggravated and exemplary damages, as well as a declaration that the first defendant had committed the tort of nonfeasance in public office, and the second, third and fourth defendants were also vicariously liable for the tort of nonfeasance committed by the first defendant.