نوع مقاله : نقد رای وحدت رویه
نویسنده
بخش حقوق خصوصی و اسلامی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]
Since a long time, one of the mandatory contents of the petition, whether it is a preliminary or a complaint against the decision, has been the inclusion of the residence and the exact address of the litigants, and such a requirement has been provided in order to facilitate the service of judicial documents. It is reasonable to expect the litigants or their lawyers and representatives to notify the court of the change in their address, and as long as the aforementioned order is not followed, the litigants will be served in the same place as before. The question that has been raised and disputed in the judicial procedure is whether the precedent of service in the first instance may be extended to the stage of appeal against the decision or not? Unifying decision No. 23/1981 of the General Board of the Supreme Court, in response to the question raised, determined the independence of each of the stages of the proceedings in terms of the precedent service and did not consider the precedent of service in the first instance to be applicable in the appeal stage. This article has been written as a criticism of the said decision and the proposal of opposing thoughts, as well as reconciling the issue with the regulations related to electronic judicial service.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)