provision of the law that shall only be applicable to the civil law suits. The family affairs suits are considered as of special nature, for that reason the legislator has assigned for its settlement special procedural provisions that are not applicable to the civil suit. The law has provided for the way to deal with party’s presence and absence in section (18/19 of the Schedule. Section 19/1 provides (When the defendant did not attend personally or through an agent on the date fixed for hearing, without expressing a reasonable cause for his absence, the court shall hear the case in his absence and rule on the case provided the court shall make sure the summon is dully received by the defendant …). Sub s. 2 of section 19 provides ( where the presence of the defendant is necessary and when the ruling of the case depend on his oath in divorce cases and the like , the court shall issue an order to him to attend , when the defendant is reluctant delayed and did not show a reasonable cause for that the court may order his arrest) In this case, after dismissing a case for divorce for damage, the case for divorce for diversity is justified and should be discussed according the proceeding specified to adjudicate on such case especially section 162 that provides for the way to settle this dispute. As the case is in preliminary stage and no final decision is passed on the merits of the case, and the court had only decided to appoint arbitrators from the relatives capable of achieving reform of the parties' relation we will not stand for long on these proceeding. The law has specified the conditions of the appointment of the two arbitrators according to section 163 of the Family Law Act. Among these conditions is that the arbitrators shall be one from the relatives of the wife and the other from the relatives of the husband. (verse 35 – Surat Alnisah) Hence the base for the legality of arbitration is trace able to Suna and holy Quran. The two parties are obliged to nominate an arbitrator from the concerned party relatives. The court shall then after issue the decision of the appointment. The merits of that nomination are to guarantee the relations of the arbitrators to both parties (see Family Law explanation - book – author Dr. Ahmed Mohammed Abdalmajeed j 2 page 255) The author added on the same page that if it becomes impossible to appoint the two arbitrators from the party’s relatives, in such a case the judge shall appoint the arbitrators from foreigners to the parties if he makes, they are wise, and they will amicably settle the dispute. The judge accordingly is prohibited from appointing the two arbitrators from the first instance. Thus, the relatives have the priority to be appointed as arbitrators, and then flows others well reputed Muslims. The condition for that as aforesaid is that each party shall appoint his arbitrator. The law did not provide for a specific profession for the arbitrator except that he should be from the relatives of the wife and the husband. Apparently, the law did not bar the advocate when he is the relative of any of the parties to be an arbitrator of the party nominating the advocate as per this case. We did not recognize any legal reason that prevent such advocate appointment in this case. As per the issue of the arrest warrant to the defendant, clearly this warrant contradicts the proceeding stipulated to guide the ruling on family affairs suit provided for under section 19. In such case the court shall instead of arresting the defendant shall hear the case in his absence unless ruling on the case is dependent on the oath of the defendant then the attendance of the defendant shall be forced and an order to present the defendant shall be issued by the court. The reason for issuing the warrant of arrest for the defendant apparently was not for the reason of his request to take oath to affect divorce but for his delaying of the proceeding. This situation of dilatory tactics could only be dealt with by issuing a default decree and not by issuing a warrant of arrest. Such arrest warrant issuance is in violation of the law. With reference to the order depriving the advocate of the right to represent the defendant issued under section 58/3 of the Civil Procedure Act, the provision of the said section is self evident. It should be proved that the representative, intentionally or negligently has delayed the proceeding for three time and in this case only the representative shall be stopped from conducting the proceeding. Even in this case the party to the case shall personally be summoned by the prevention of his representative. In this case no un reasonable delay for three times is caused intentionally by the advocate is proved, hence this decision is wrong and shall be reconsidered.