Article 5, Schedule, and Articles 11 and 17 for the dissolution of marriage were scheduled for the trial court to present their counsel and in this regard the court waited for the defendant's lawyer, even though the timeout period ended. Although he did not appear in court, the evidence could not be recorded for the defendant due to the absence of a lawyer, and the court had no choice but to pay costs to the defendant's witnesses. The defendant was legally challenged by the defendant, which was ordered by a writ petition in the High Court. The petition was rejected by the High Court. The defendant's rule was that the High Court verdict was not upheld as the provisions of the CPC were not applicable. The proceedings before the E Family Court, any order for payment of costs to the court witnesses. Could not be passed under section 17 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Family Courts Act, 1993, not in accordance with the provisions of the Convention Shahadat, 1984 and Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Apply the proceedings in the Family Court unless expressly provided for under or under the said Act and the Family Court has stated its procedure for hearing the said cases which the Act Family Court The order had the authority to examine the witnesses presented by the parties, although this was deemed appropriate, although it was not explicitly provided as to what order the witnesses were to present, but this authority was assigned to the court. That she will determine this mode / order as she understands the appropriate CPC arrangements, though this is not applicable I was Car in front of Family Court
Related judgments — Supreme Court Azad Kashmir, 2013
