چکیده:
Writs form one of the most important types of judicial decisions in courts. The question which always challenges lawyers mind in terms of analyzing the type of judgments of the objectionable by a third party is whether or not writs can be objected similar to judgements by the third party. The compilation quality of the relevant regulations from the code of legal procedure in 1290 to the civil procedure law in 1379 and applying the terms » every kind verdict and writ« in previous laws and the phrase » every kind judgment« in new code, as objectionable judgements, the necessity of obtaining condition of disorder to the right of third party for accepting the protest, the elements and features governing to » judgement of court « and the other principles governing to procedure rules, have caused to law intellectuals to be different in opinions on the possibility or impossibility of the third party protest to the interlocutory writs, finals decrees or writs of attachment. Regarding the studies on different opinions and relevant explanation, the present essay, will reveal the fact that in spite of the general application of the term »judgment« in articles 417 and 418 of the code of procedure… in civil matters 1379, the rules of third party objection only includes the judgements not any writs.
خلاصه ماشینی:
This group of authors believes that from the wording of Article 417 of the Civil Procedure Code, considering other principles governing the procedure, it cannot be inferred that all orders are objectionable, because interlocutory orders, which merely serve to prepare the case for making a final decision and whose reason for issuance is the investigation regarding the disputed right, do not in themselves cause an infringement of the rights of a third party to be independently objectionable; even such orders are not objectionable by the parties to the lawsuit themselves, and a fortiori, a third party cannot have such a right (Mardani et al.
In Advisory Opinion No. 7/92/1085–92/6/6, it has been stated: "If the court order is not an interlocutory order but is considered a final order, since it is inferred from the provisions of Articles 420, 423, and 424 of the Civil Procedure Code that the decision objectionable by a third party is limited to a judgment; therefore, the final orders of the court are also excluded from the scope of the 'decision' subject to Article 417 and do not possess the possibility of objection by a third party.
2. The possibility of third-party objection to all orders Some legal scholars believe that unlike cassation, which is only possible regarding the decisions specified in the law 2, and also retrial, which can only be raised regarding final judgments (not orders), third-party objection is possible to any decision issued by the courts; and in the discussion of third-party objection to orders, by using the generality and scope of Article 418 of the Civil Procedure Code, which has replaced Article 583 of the previous law enacted in 1318, they even consider interlocutory orders to be subject to third-party objection (Shams, 1381: 498-499).
(
, 
, 
)
