Comparison of and Distinguishing Ways of Action with Foundation, Manner, Cause, Relief seeking, Reason, Entitlement

According to Clause 4, Article 51 of the Civil Procedure Code, one of the obligatory provisions of a claim is the commitments and grounds by virtue of which the plaintiff is entitled to the claim. In some of the mentioned articles of law, such as Articles 15 and 98, the origin, and the cause of the claim are also referred to. In civil procedural law, the origin, grounds, the cause and the mode of the claim have not been properly explained; hence, by studying legal sources, one can find out that some jurists have considered the origin and mode of the claim as the same, and others have coined the ground of the claim and sometimes equated it with the origin of the claim. Distinguishing the difference, and at the same time, the relationship between them, has important effects on the litigation. For example, it can be determined which one is obligatory to mention in the claim since the failure to specify it will cause the suspension of the claim and the issuance of a notice to remedy the defect. Furthermore, changing the origin of the claim after filing the claim is not possible, but changing the mode of the claim is possible when the conditions stipulated in Article 98 of the Civil Procedure Code are observed. The legislator’s flaw is to mention some words without stating their meaning, for every word or phrase in the civil procedural law has its own specific legal effects. In this research, the obligations and grounds, as well as the origin, the coined word 'cause', and also the mode of the claim are explained in simple and clear language.