Private Law
Maryam Heydarizadi
Abstract
Introduction: In accordance with a fundamental tenet governing civil procedure law, the initiation of an appeal is constrained by the scope to which a matter was considered during the initial stage. However, legislative provisions at times introduce deviations from this principle. The well-established ...
Read More
Introduction: In accordance with a fundamental tenet governing civil procedure law, the initiation of an appeal is constrained by the scope to which a matter was considered during the initial stage. However, legislative provisions at times introduce deviations from this principle. The well-established doctrine of "prohibition of new claims at the appellate stage" dictates that appellate judges are restricted to the issues and judgments of the lower court. Nevertheless, the rule concerning "restricting the participation of parties not originally involved in the lawsuit at the appellate stage" may, in some instances, be influenced by the potential interests and advantages associated with involving third parties at this higher level. Method: Considering the inherent nature of the subject matter and the research objectives, the present study adopts a qualitative approach, employing a descriptive and analytical methodology. It is rooted in the exposition, interpretation, and rationalization of materials extracted from pertinent sources. Findings: The filing of certain ambiguous lawsuits, including third-party interventions and their statutory preliminary hearings, is attributed to a variety of factors, interests, philosophies, and objectives envisioned by the legislator, leading to notable deviations from the aforementioned rules. These deviations manifest in various forms, including the design of specific procedures that result from primary lawsuits being elevated to the appellate stage. This includes applications for satisfaction of demands and urgent hearings before the Court of Appeals, along with the preliminary hearing of foreclosure claims in the cases under consideration. Moreover, the intertwined nature and mutual influence of the primary and underlying lawsuits in consolidated proceedings justify the legislator's prescription in the initial proceedings of the appellate court. Results: The Court of Appeals' initial review of certain ambiguous lawsuits, as mandated by the legislator, enables the establishment of specific procedures and special mechanisms to address issues devoid of a substantive aspect. This authority is granted on the basis of two primary considerations: first, the existence of an appeal claim, which confers competence upon the appellate court to handle such proceedings. This applies particularly in cases where the appellant, following their appeal, seeks to satisfy their demand or requests urgent proceedings in the appellate jurisdiction
