نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 استاد دانشکدۀ حقوق دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران
2 دانشآموختۀ دکتری حقوق خصوصی دانشگاه مفید، قم، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
It is necessary to determine the defendant and the relevancy of the claim in every petition. This is the point that should be considered by both the court and the petitioner. In Common Law, if there is a mistake about the defendant, the petitioner can correct it before the case is closed. In the Iranian legal system, the petitioner faces limitations and has to be sure about the relevancy of the claim to prevent the rejection of the lawsuit.
The relevancy of a claim which is the most important criterion in determining the defendant helps the courts in issuing the sentence. But studying the court’s rulings shows that it has not been effective as it should. We believe that the ambiguity in this concept has led to such inefficiency. and judges frequently face these two challenges: 1) what is the concept of the relevancy of the claim and 2) what are the requirements to conceptualize this vague and general term, making it applicable?
In general meaning, the relevancy of the claim is the inherent feature of the case to determine the defendant and establish a relationship between the case and the defendant. So, the right to defend and the possibility of enforcing the judgment are two elements of the relevancy of the claim. Judges get sure about the position of the defendant when these two conditions are met. In this way, the relevancy is an experimental concept. On the other hand, determining the meaning of this concept is not enough to grasp it for practical purposes. This essay aims to clarify the concept of the relevancy of the claim and determine the criteria for applying it by studying the Imamiyyah jurist’s opinions and juridical judgments.
کلیدواژهها [English]
منابع
الف) فارسی و عربی
ب) خارجی
62. Clarles E. Charles & Robert M. Hutchins (1925), "the real party in interest", 34, Yale law journal.pp.259-276. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/2618 (Accessed 23 September 2022).
63. Corrine Care, J. (2004). Civil Procedure and courts in the south pacific. Cavendish Publishing Limited. .
64. Hart, H. L. A. (1994). The concept of law. Oxford university press. New York.
65. jolowicz J. A. (2008). On civil procedure, Cambridge university press.
66. Bevans Neal R. (2008). Civil law & litigation for paralegals. the mc Graw. Hill Companies.
67. Marcus, R. L. & Rowe, T. D. (2008). Civil Procedure. gilbert law summaries, united states of America.
68. Yeazell, Stephen c. & Joanna C. Schwartz (2015). civil procedure. Aspen Case Book Series, Wolters Kluwer New York.
69. Subrin, Stephen N. & Martha L. Minow, Mark S. Brodin, Thomas O. Main(2020), federal rules of civil procedure, U. S. Government printing office.
70. Kessner,Theodor L. (1960)," Federal Court Interpertations of the Real Paty in Interest Rule in Cases of Subrogation", Nebraska law Review, Vol. 39.pp.452-472. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol39/iss3/2/ (Accessed 16 may 2022).
71. Clermont, K. M. (2004), Civil Procedure, Thomson West business hers.
72. Loughlin, P. & Gerlis, S. (2008). Civil Procedure. Gavendish publishing limited, London.
)