چکیده:
The presence of the plaintiff and defendant has different effects and enforcement guarantees; although the law stipulates that the absence of either does not prevent the proceedings. The current solution may be the dismissal of the lawsuit or the issuance of a default judgment. The solution of Imamiyyah jurisprudence, previous civil procedure laws, and French law are not the same in this regard. In jurisprudence, the concept of the presence of the plaintiff and defendant appears in their personal participation in the proceedings and is very different from the current understanding. In France, a default judgment can also be issued against the plaintiff, which is known as a 'conflicting' judgment, and a default judgment is also issued against the defendant, but numerous methods are considered in the proceedings and the validity of the default judgment to reduce the instances of default judgments. Our previous laws can also be studied and examined from various aspects. What can be emphasized is that increasing the number of default judgments and being generous in accepting appeals does not necessarily equate to guaranteeing the rights of the plaintiff or ensuring the defense rights of the defendant.
خلاصه ماشینی:
This approach was slightly modified in the Civil Procedure Law approved on September 25, 1318, and in Article 165, it was stipulated: “If the plaintiff does not appear in the court session, even if they have temporarily requested the court to suspend the proceedings, the court will dismiss the lawsuit and issue a judgment for the damages incurred by the defendant upon the defendant’s request.
Also, in the case of multiple defendants, considering public interests and order of the judiciary and preventing the issuance of default and in-person judgments against the defendants in one lawsuit, the “theory of joinder” was used, and contrary to the Provisional Law of Principles of Civil Trials, which stipulated that the non-appearance of some of the defendants does not prevent proceedings against the present person, but the court delays issuing a judgment and summons the absent defendant again and states in the summons that if he does not appear at the hearing, the court’s judgment will be in-person; in this case, if the absent defendant did not appear at the next session either, the court would complete the proceedings and issue a judgment regarding all defendants, and the court’s judgment would be considered in-person (Article 171); a judgment that, according to some professors, included everyone and was not actually in-person for all, but the law treated it as an in-person judgment so that such an absentee would no longer have the right to object to it (Matin Daftar, 1378, p.
(
, 
, 
)
