جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « impleader » در نشریات گروه « علوم انسانی »

The appellate court shall hear a case which has been heard by the court of first instance and, in the nature of the case, has been voted on and appealed to. The appeal stage is the time when the higher court is asked to reconsider the lawsuit filed in the initial stage, as a result of which the application of the first court is somewhat revised. Accordingly, because Articles 7 and 357 of the Procedure general and revolutionary courts cod in civil matters require the involvement of third parties who are not present at the initial stage and must be prohibited in principle, this principle is sometimes accompanied by exceptions. These include third-party entry, impleader,  attachment of relief and temporary order. The time to file a counter-claim in the first instance is until the end of the first hearing. Exceptionally, if a third-party entry lawsuit and impleader is filed at the appellate stage, or the new claim is legally heard, the defendant can be sued in the counter-claim. Article 362 of the Code of Civil Procedure of Iran and Articles 563 and 566 of the Code of Civil Procedure of France, ignoring the principle of two-stage proceedings, have prescribed some examples of new claims in the appeal stage.

Additional lawsuits are not well known in the Iranian civil procedure legal system, and there has been little discussion of this in legal articles and books. According to the legislature in Article 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, additional lawsuits one of the types of ancillary claim and it is clear to those who know that the design and defense of such claim requires compliance with the procedures set forth in the law mentioned above. Unlike other ancillary claims (counterclaim, impleader and third party intervention), the rules of civil proceedings do not examine its effects and rulings in detail and independently. The question posed in this article is how to properly plan an additional lawsuit in Iranian civil procedure that would logically have a close relationship with the origin of the main lawsuit. The achievement of this article is the submission of an application as a more logical alternative to the petition and the presentation of some new conclusions in accordance with the law and inspired by judicial procedure. By examining the concept, necessity, conditions and rulings of these disputes and analyzing them, the authors have tried to take a small step by shedding light on obscure points.

Impleader is one of the ancillary suits that parties to the dispute according to it can claim against third party. Although Iran’s legislator in the laws related to this claim has not specified conditions of mentioned claim, according to article 17 of civil law, it should be related or have the same origin with main claim, so that the court can hear and decide them altogether. The result of being related or having the same origin of impleader with main claim is that relief of impeder can be different from relief of main claim. American’s Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has provided different legal mechanisms for aggregation of claims that three of them are similar to regulations of impleader in Iran’s law which are as follow: joinder (rules of 19 and 20), impleader (rule 14), cross claim (rule 13). The basis of study is Iran’s law, even though comparative study with American’s Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will be done as well

According to some articles of civil procedure code (as articles 135, 136 and 143) some ancillary actions (such as counter-claim and impleader) should be made within certain time-limits. In case of not considering the time limits and bringing these actions outside the time-limits, there are three theories; A) dismissal of action, B) separating the action and trying the claim separately C) differentiating between the cases related to the main claim and the non-related ones, trying the firstones together and trying the latterseparately. There are viewpoints, reasoning and criticisms about acceptance and rejection of each theory. However, reasons of the third theory are stronger and its criticisms are weaker. So this theory is more acceptable.