Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD RAMZAN versus UMRAN KHAN

Section 13 (5) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Family Courts Act 1993 (V9 1898), relating to the recovery of a restitution allowance order approved by Articles 488 and 386 of the Family Court, whether applicable to any decree of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 was not. Proceedings under the Family Courts Act 1993, therefore, the definition given in the CPC order cannot be filed by any party or other party in support of its respective rules, however, section 488 (3), The CCP has authorized the magistrate. If it is properly receiving section 8 488, CRPC under the CRPC, to issue a warrant for recovery of the amount owed under Section 888888, the PC means that Section 6 386, C. The provisions in the RPC that relate to the warrant issued for the collection of fines shall apply to the collection process. To the extent a warrant was issued under section 488 under section 488 (3), the CRPC should realize as if it were OK under section 386 (3), 1898 of the CRPC's Personal Code of Conduct. The e-court issues the warrant to the collector under section 386 (1) (b); the CCPC shall treat such warrant as a decree and the collector in the sense of the civil procedure code word decree used in Sector 13 (5). Will be considered as decree holder. The provisions of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Family Courts Act, 1993, apply to the order passed in the rehabilitation proceedings under section 488, CCPC, even though it does not comply with the words Meaning, Azad Jammu and the like, could not be assigned a limited meaning through the Kashmir Family Courts Act, 1993, therefore, in section 13 (5) of the Act Pakistan, top advocate family court from Bhimbar lawyer