Law Quarterly

Law Quarterly

Mixed Judgment: A New Discourse in Litigation Law

Document Type : Research Paper

Author
seyed rasoul mirnejad
PhD in Private Law, University of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services, Tehran, Iran.
10.22059/jlq.2026.396271.1008002
Abstract
Introduction
Undoubtedly, this statement by Holmes, the American pioneer of the realist school, who believed that legal knowledge comes from experience rather than logic, should be taken to heart. This concept emphasizes the significant role of on-the-ground circumstances in shaping the legal challenges users face within the judicial system. This process doubles the importance and status of judicial procedure in any legal system. Because, contrary to legal doctrine or legal etiquette, a solution must be proposed to overcome it so the court's decision can be considered a major step toward ending the existing conflict.
One of these challenges, which of course has been exacerbated by the economic conditions of the last decade, concerns how to evaluate claims that, beyond being common, can evolve over time. A well-established example is the daily rate compensation claim, as outlined in Unanimous Decision No. 811. In this case and old examples such as the payment of the days of possession or the right to acquire or trade or profession of the tenant, the subject of the Landlord-Tenant Relations Law of 1977, or the demand for a fair price for land that has been seized in the implementation of the Law on the Manner of Purchase and Acquisition of Lands, enacted in 1979, and the Additional Note thereto, enacted in 2009, The plaintiff, and occasionally the defendant, seek to determine the value corresponding to the day or the time of enforcement of the judgment so that, on this basis, they can confidently manage their financial affairs through shocks such as unchecked inflation. However, the customary and selected method in current judicial practice does not indicate a favorable response to this logical tendency and to the rights of the litigants mentioned above. On this basis, after recognizing the plaintiff's and defendant's right to payment, the court begins the evaluation process, which is always accompanied by an expert opinion and includes its final result in the operative part of the judgment. This approach, whose efficacy has admittedly been considerably diminished today, has at least two consequences.
First, the final price stated by the court in its decision and the amount the plaintiff or defendant is instructed to pay invariably diverge significantly from prevailing economic inflation. This will never satisfy the convict and will force him to take another step to compensate for this deficiency, relying on legal bases such as the Note to Article 19 of the 2002 Law on Official Experts of the Judiciary, to undertake yet another initiative to remedy this deficiency. Such conduct will, needless to say, increase the frequency of litigation. Second, the prolongation of judicial proceedings, or what is commonly known as “undue delay in proceedings,” will be among the direct consequences of the proposed method. This is because repeated expert examinations in the course of judicial proceedings will prolong the proceedings. This will prolong the litigation process through successive expert opinions.
Given the widespread recognition of the inefficiency inherent in traditional methodologies, it is imperative to take corrective measures and develop innovative strategies to avert their detrimental effects. The pertinent inquiry then arises: what actions should be pursued? The approach proposed in this research, significantly influenced by the author's experience as a judge and daily case analyst, introduces the concept of "mixed or hybrid judgments." This term, as suggested by its name, derives from the fusion of “judgment" and "order.” Consequently, a court’s decision possesses a dual nature; it functions as a judgment by delineating rights and providing a definitive stance on the validity of claims and proceedings, and simultaneously as an “order” since it entrusts the assessment of the claimant’s or defendant’s entitlement to an expert—an assessment to be overseen during the execution phase, in accordance with the provisions of Article 75 of the Civil Judgments Enforcement Law.
Method
This research used a descriptive-analytical method to analyze the subject. However, unlike in other studies, the required data were mainly derived from court decisions and judicial procedures, and library resources were used mainly to strengthen the scientific support for the study's proposal.
Conclusions
“Mixed judgment" is an emerging concept identified within litigation law, and its application aligns with the core principles of civil procedural law. This institution is a logical response aligned with the common understanding of justice, where users expect the court's decision—especially in cases subject to significant changes due to economic inflation—to efficiently prevent the need to reopen cases that could result in detrimental effects such as increased economic costs and extended durations. Such an outcome is attainable through the unified criteria outlined in Article 46 of the Civil Judgment Enforcement Act and the mechanism established in Article 75 of the same law.
Keywords
Enforcement of Judgments
Mixed Judgments and Orders
Expert Examination
Adversarial Principle
منابع
جعفری تبار، حسن (1401). منطق حیرانی. چ سوم، تهران: نشر نو.
جعفری تبار، حسن (1400). دیو در شیشه (فلسفة رویة قضایی). چ دوم، تهران: نگاه معاصر.
درایتی، مجتبی (1394). «ملاک تشخیص در فلسفۀ ارسطو، صورت یا ماده؟». مجلۀ حکمت و فلسفه، (1)، 69-88 https://wph.atu.ac.ir/article_1579.html (25 آبان 1403)
خدابخشی، عبدالله (1398). «موارد و آثار حکم قطعی غیرقابل اجرا». مجلۀ حقوقی دادگستری، (105)، 84 - 107DOI: 10.22106/jlj.2019.35487   .
خدابخشی، عبدالله (1398). تمایز بنیادین حقوق مدنی و کیفری. چ سوم، تهران: شهر دانش.
خدابخشی، عبدالله (1398). حقوق داوری و دعاوی مربوط به آن در رویة قضایی. چ ششم، تهران: شرکت سهامی انتشار.
خدابخشی، عبدالله (1392). حقوق حاکم بر اجرای آرای مدنی. چ اول، تهران: شرکت سهامی انتشار.
شهابی، مهدی ( 1401). فلسفة حقوق. چ چهارم، تهران: پژوهشگاه فرهنگ و اندیشة اسلامی.
شمس، عبدالله (1399). اجرای احکام مدنی. ج 1، چ چهارم، تهران: دراک.
شمس، عبدالله، (1390). آیین دادرسی مدنی-دورۀ پیشرفته. ج 2، چ سی‌ویکم، تهران: دراک.
شهیدی، مهدی (1375). مجموعه مقالات حقوقی، چ اول، تهران: حقوقدان.
غمامی، مجید (1401). اصول در غیاب تشریفات؛ مطلوبی ناممکن. مجلۀ مطالعات حقوقی دانشگاه شیراز، 14(4)، 95- 118. 10.22099/JLS.2023.41102.4447DOI:
قوام صفری، مهدی (1382). نظریۀ صورت در فلسفة ارسطو. چ اول، تهران: حکمت
کاتوزیان، ناصر (1385). کلیات حقوق. چ اول، تهران: شرکت سهامی انتشار.
کاتوزیان، ناصر (1376). حقوق مدنی؛ عقود معین. ج 1، چ اول، تهران: شرکت سهامی انتشار.
محسنی، حسن (1389). ادارة جریان دادرسی مدنی؛ بر پایۀ همکاری و در چارچوب اصول دادرسی. چ اول، تهران: شرکت سهامی انتشار.
محسنی، حسن (1392). اجرای مؤثر رأی و آیین اجرای محکومیت مالی. چ اول، تهران: شرکت سهامی انتشار.
محسنی، حسن (1397).« تصرف دادخواهان در دعوا و دادرسی». مجلۀ حقوق تطبیقی، 9 (1)، بهار و تابستان، 403- 423  DOI:10.22059/jcl.2018.246044.633580 .
میرنژاد بروجنی، سید رسول (1400). اصل قابل استماع بودن دعاوی در فقه اسلامی و حقوق ایران. چ اول، تهران: دانشگاه علوم قضایی و خدمات اداری.
متین دفتری، احمد (1378). آیین دادرسی مدنی. ج 2، چ پنجم، تهران: مجد.
نهرینی، فریدون (1398). آیین دادرسی مدنی. ج 2، چ اول، تهران: گنج دانش.
نهرینی، فریدون (1392). ایستایی اجرای حکم دادگاه. چ اول، تهران: گنج دانش.
نهرینی، فریدون (1390). تشخیص ماهیت و نوع رأی دادگاه. فصلنامة مطالعات حقوق خصوصی دانشگاه تهران، 41(2)، 301 -320. در:  https://jlq.ut.ac.ir/article_29663.html  (25 آبان 1403)
یاکوبسن، رومن (1369). زبان‌شناسی و شعرشناسی. ترجمۀ مریم خوزان و حسین پاینده، تهران: نی.
 
Reference
Drayati, M. (2015). The Criteria for Distinguishing in Aristotle’s Philosophy, Form or Matter?. Journal of Wisdom and Philosophy, 11(1) 69-88. https://wph.atu.ac.ir/article_1579.html. (Accessed 15 November 2024) [in Persian]
Derrida, Jacques and John D. Caputo (2008). Deconstruction in a Nutshell, a Conversation with Jacques Derrida. New York: Fordham University.
Jafari Tabar, H. (2022). The Logic of Heirani. 3rd edition, Tehran: Nashre-e-Nou Publishing House. [in Persian]
Jafari Tabar, H. (2021(.The Demon in the Glass (Philosophy of Judicial Procedure). 2nd edition, Tehran: Negah-e-Moser Publishing House. [in Persian]
James T. Kloppenberg (1996). Pragmatism: An Old Name for Some New Ways of Thinking?. Journal of American Histor, 83 -100.
Jacobsen, R. (1980). Linguistics and Poetics. translated by Maryam Khozan and Hossein Payandeh, Tehran: Nay Publications.
Khodabakhshi, A. (2019). Cases and Effects of Unenforceable Final Judgment. Journal of Justice Law, (105), 84-107  doi:2019035487/10.22106. [in Persian]
Khodabakhshi, A. (2019). Fundamental Distinction between Civil and Criminal Law, Third Edition, Tehran, Shahr Danesh Research Institute Publications. [in Persian]
Khodabakhshi, A. (2019). Arbitration Law and Related Claims in Judicial Procedure. Sixth Edition, Tehran: Publications of the Joint Stock Company Publications. [in Persian]
Khodabakhshi, A. (2013). Law Governing the Enforcement of Civil Judgments. First Edition, Tehran, Publications of the Joint Stock Company Publications. [in Persian]
Shahabi, M. (2021). Philosophy of Law. Fourth Editio n, Tehran: Publications of the Islamic Culture and Thought Research Institute. [in Persian]
Shahidi, M. (2016). Collection of Legal Articles. First Edition, Tehran: Lawyer Publishin.g. [in Persian]
Shams, A. (2019). Enforcement of Civil Judgments. Vol.1, Fourth Edition, Tehran: Publications Drak. [in Persian]
Shams, A. (2011). Civil Procedure - Advanced Course. Vol. 2, 31st Edition, Tehran: Drak Publishing. [in Persian]
Ghamami, M. (2012). Principles in the Absence of Formalities; An Impossible Desire. Journal of Legal Studies, Shiraz University, 14(1), 95-118. DOI: 10.22099/JLS.2023.41102.4447. [in Persian]
Fuller, L. (1969). Morality of Law. New Heaven: Yale University press.
Heidegger, M. (1975). Der Grundbegriffe der Phanomenologie. Gesammtausgabe Bd. 24; Frankfurt a. M., Vittorio Klostermann.
Heidegger, M. (2005). Phanomenologische Interpretationen ausgewahlter Abhandlungen des Aristoteles zu Ontologie und Logik. Gesammtausgabe Bd. 62; 2; Frankfurt a. M., Vittorio Klostermann.
Katouzian, N. (2006). Generalities of Law. First Edition, Tehran: Publishing Joint Stock Company. [in Persian]
Katouzian, N. (2007). Civil Law; Specific Contracts. Vol. 1, First Edition, Tehran: Publishing Joint Stock Company. [in Persian]
Mohseni, H. (2009). Administration of Civil Procedure; Based on cooperation and within the framework of the principles of procedure. first edition, Tehran: Joint Stock Publishing Company. [in Persian]
Mohseni, H. (2013). Effective execution of the verdict and the procedure for the execution of financial convictions, first edition, Tehran, Joint Stock Publishing Company. [in Persian]
Mohseni, H. (2018). The seizure of plaintiffs in litigation and proceedings. Comparative Law Journal, 9(1), Spring and Summer, 403-423. [in Persian]
    DOI:10.22059/jcl.2018.246044.633580
Mirnezhad Borujeni, S. R. (2021(. The principle of the admissibility of claims in Islamic jurisprudence and Iranian law. first edition, Tehran: University of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services Publications. [in Persian]
Matin Daftari, A. (1999). Civil Procedure Code. Vol. 2, Fifth Edition, Tehran: Majd Scientific and Cultural Forum Publications. [in Persian]
Montesquieu,)1900.( Charles de Secondet, Thomas Nugent, Jean Le Rond d’Alembert, and Walter Bagehot ،The spirit of laws. New York: Colonial Press.
Nahrini, F. (2018). Civil Procedure Code. Vol. 2, First Edition, Tehran: Ganj     Danesh Publications. [in Persian]
Nahrini, F. (2018). Suspension of the execution of the verdict Court. First Edition, Tehran: Ganj Danesh Publications. [in Persian]
Nahrini, F. (2011). Distinguishing the Nature and Type of Court Decision. Quarterly Journal of Private Law Studies, University of Tehran, 41(2), 301-320.  https://jlq.ut.ac.ir/article_29663.html(Accessed 15 November 2024) [in Persian]
Qavam Safari, M. (2003). The Theory of Form in Aristotle's Philosophy. First Edition, Tehran: Hekmat Publishing. [in Persian]
 
 
Law Quarterly
Volume 56, Issue 2
Summer 2026
Pages 309-332