Examining the Retrial for Conflicting Two Rulings Emphasizing the "Same Court" Element in the Light of Doctrine and Judicial Procedure

Two people sign a contract with each other in Isfahan and the place of fulfillment of the commitment is Tehran. The first party files a lawsuit against the defendant in Tehran once, and the verdict is issued against him. He brings the same lawsuit without changing the legal reason in Isfahan for the second time. The defendant is not informed about the new lawsuit, or he does not go to court to defend himself, thinking that the court will again issue a verdict in his favor. The verdict, however, will be issued in favor of the plaintiff. According to the Civil Procedure Law, if two judgments are contradictory with the same subject, cause and, parties, the second judgment will have the possibility of retrial. By interpreting "the same court" as "unity in the branch" or "unity in the jurisdiction" which is accepted by the doctrine and judicial procedure, the reinstatement of proceedings is eliminated. In this article, the above viewpoints are criticized and with a comparative study and a review of the former civil procedure laws, the view of the unity of class and type is accepted.

Publication Details

Journal
SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología
Published
2024-09-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.48300/jlr.2023.375682.2231
Primary Topic
Legal Rights and Human Rights
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Examining the Retrial for Conflicting Two Rulings Emphasizing the "Same Court" Element in the Light of Doctrine and Judicial Procedure

SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología
Legal Rights and Human Rights
article

Examining the Retrial for Conflicting Two Rulings Emphasizing the "Same Court" Element in the Light of Doctrine and Judicial Procedure

article en

Abstract

Two people sign a contract with each other in Isfahan and the place of fulfillment of the commitment is Tehran. The first party files a lawsuit against the defendant in Tehran once, and the verdict is issued against him. He brings the same lawsuit without changing the legal reason in Isfahan for the second time. The defendant is not informed about the new lawsuit, or he does not go to court to defend himself, thinking that the court will again issue a verdict in his favor. The verdict, however, will be issued in favor of the plaintiff. According to the Civil Procedure Law, if two judgments are contradictory with the same subject, cause and, parties, the second judgment will have the possibility of retrial. By interpreting "the same court" as "unity in the branch" or "unity in the jurisdiction" which is accepted by the doctrine and judicial procedure, the reinstatement of proceedings is eliminated. In this article, the above viewpoints are criticized and with a comparative study and a review of the former civil procedure laws, the view of the unity of class and type is accepted.

SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 33%
Legal Rights and Human Rights
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Examining the Retrial for Conflicting Two Rulings Emphasizing the "Same Court" Element in the Light of Doctrine and Judicial Procedure · SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS