What you need to know about issuing a vote out of the lawsuits

Isa Amir Amiran, a lawyer for the university's lecturer, told Mehr reporter about the issuance of a vote out of the request: In the Iranian civil procedure system, one of the fundamental principles of the investigation is to comply with the petition. According to this principle, the court only has the right to investigate the demands set forth in the petition, and withdrawing from this limitation is a violation of the principle of impartiality and the rule of prohibition of decision -making outside. This point is not only rooted in the theoretical foundations of fair hearing, but it has also been emphasized many times in the judicial procedure. Review of the definitive lawsuit # 1 of the Tehran Province Court of Appeal is an objective example of the correct implementation of this important principle in the appeal phase.

A history of disputes and demands

Referring to the definitive verdict from Branch 4 of the Tehran Province Court of Appeal, he added: In a case, the preliminary court had exceeded the demands of the applicants. While the petition merely emphasized the requirement of contractual obligations such as purchasing divisions, installation of elevators and completion, the Board of Directors and the lower court have also entered into the outskirts of the metal skeleton price and the end cost.

The objection to the primitive vote; Exit

He said: Although the principal of the lawsuits refers to specified contractual obligations, the expert delegation went beyond this range, and such as the disparity of the steel skeleton price, the claimant for the factors, their share of fourth -class rentals, and the cost of the end. These cases are basically outside the demands of the primitive demands and have not been claimed in the initial petition.

The lawyer continued: “However, the preliminary court has issued the verdict on the basis of extensive expert theory without limiting its verdicts to the specified demands. This contradicts directly to the following clauses in Article 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the context of the appeal.

The appeal court reaction; The precise exercise of the law

The Amir Bakhsami said: The Court of Appeal of Tehran Province has thoroughly examined the provisions of the petition and its compliance with the terms of the verdict and the expert theory, that some of the cases in the vote were outside the context of the petitioners. These include the requirement of cases such as the price difference between the steel skeleton and the end cost, which are not basically mentioned in the petition.

He added that the court, based on clause (C) Article 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (which was not issued on a matter that was not demanded) and, under Article 4 of the same law, has violated the preliminary verdict and has issued a ruling to the applicants. The verdict has also been decided at this stage.

The importance of voting in question in health care

“This case is a clear example of the legislator's emphasis and judicial procedure on the necessity of observing the demands in the process,” the forgive emirate said. The court, even if he or she achieves realities beyond the realization of the theory, has no right to adjust its sentence based on those facts unless the demands have explicitly raised new demands or the litigation has been amended.

At the end, the lawyer said: “The documentary by the above judgment can be concluded that the court's departure from the request is explicit violation of the law and will be a violation of termination or violation of the appeal.” This, in addition to the technical aspect, also plays a key role in ensuring the rights of the parties to the lawsuit and maintaining the neutrality of the courts.