- 11 April 2022. Issue notice, returnable in four weeks. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to take out Dasti also.
- 22 September 2022. Four weeks time is granted to respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to file the counter affidavit. After expiry of four weeks, the matter shall be processed for listing before the Hon'ble Court.
- 10 April 2024. It is submitted that Singaravelu (respondent no.2) has died. Accordingly requisite steps for substitution are permitted to be taken within four weeks.
- 17 January 2025. 1. Respondent No. 2 Singaravelu has passed away. Accordingly, IA No. 157526 of 2024 is filed for substitution of the legal heirs, as mentioned in paragraph 4 of the application. The application is not contested. Accordingly, the application for substitution is allowed, along with the applications connected with the sub
- 16 July 2025. 1. Let fresh vakalatnama and appearance be filed by respondent No.1 and legal representatives of respondent No.2. 2. We notice that even though the mediation has remained unsuccessful but are of the considered view that the parties must endeavour to have the matter amicably resolved for the dispute is inter se real bro
- 18 August 2025. List on 01.09.2025.
- 1 September 2025. List on 19.09.2025.
- 19 September 2025. 1. In view of the letter circulated by learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 on account of bereavement in the family of arguing counsel, the matter is adjourned. 2. List on 09.10.2025.
- 9 October 2025. 1. Heard learned counsel on both sides. The submissions would reveal the desire of the parties to explore the possibility of a mediated settlement. 2. On the mutual consent of the parties, we request and appoint Mr. R. Subramanian, Former judge of the Madras High Court, as a Mediator. The parties are directed to appear
- 18 December 2025. 1. The mediation process has failed. 2. At the request of learned Counsel for the petitioner, the matter is adjourned.
- 8 January 2026. 1. Despite the best efforts put in by learned Mediator and the counsels, parties could not arrive at an amicable settlement. We implore upon the parties who are close blood Relatives, to again explore the possibility of settlement. 2. Be that as it may, we grant leave.
- 18 February 2026. 1. Learned counsel for the parties to assist as to which law would be applicable to the natives, who are practitioners of the Hindu faith, specifically whether customary law applies for proving the Will. They shall also assist as to whether the parties to the lis are governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and whet
- 12 March 2026. 1. Heard in part. 2. List on 17.03.2026 as item no.1.
- 17 March 2026. 1. We have heard learned senior counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. Arguments concluded.
- 27 July 2026. 1. This Civil Appeal impugns judgment and order dated 18 th August 2021 in AS No.543 of 2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras , which affirmed the judgment and decree dated 19 th January 2006 in O.S. 71 of 1998 by the Additional District Judge1, Pondicherry at Karaikal. 1 Trial Court 2. The appellant -
- 27 July 2026. Order on the record. The operative text could not be read.
- Counsel named on these orders, not a complete vakalatnama, include the advocates listed below.
Advocates — Appellants: Mr. S. Thananjayan, Mr. R. Natarajan, Ms. Promila, Ms. Ruby, Mr. Vishant, Ms. Pramila, Mr. Vishant Soni, Mr. Natarajan, Mr. Boominathan, Mr. Sujeet Kumar, Mr. R.Natarajan, Ms. Archana Goswami Advocates — Respondents: Mr. C. Aravind, Mr. N. Karupu Samy, Mr. Abbas. B., Ms. Jagrati Singh, Mr. Anish R. Shah, Mr. Romil Pathak, Mr. Subramaniam, Mrs. Neha Pathak, Mr. Prashant Chaturvedi, Mr. S. Kamalesh Kannan, Mr. S. Sai Sathyajith, Mr. Bharat Shandilia
