Section 5 and Schedule to the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Constitutional Request for Recovery Allowance Cross-inspection of Defendants' Right to Cross-inspection, Closing of the Imperial Order Reveals that Defendant's Counsel Was Engaged Before the High Court Defendant's request for a postponement was rejected. In view of his previous conduct by the Family Court in his absence, although the reasons for the reduction may be valid from the record, the defendant's counsel before the High Court wanted to file a professional motion. The family court judge ignored his legal obligation. Do not give to the defendant, who was present in the court, an opportunity to examine the witnesses at which the witnesses could be burdened with the expenses or alternatively be postponed for the next day but to close their rights. The order was illegal, outlawed and non-existent, so the law is viewed by the High Court directing a family court judge to allow only one opportunity to examine witnesses subject to payment of costs. \ R \ n
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
