Introduction

The common situation is that the court issues a verdict covering the entire case. However, in some instances, the court may issue a verdict on only part of the case. This situation can arise and be examined in two different ways. First, it may occur deliberately, based on the court’s decision pursuant to Articles 104 and 298 of Iran’s Civil Procedure Code. Second, a verdict on part of the case may be issued without an explicit decision announced by the court, possibly as a result of the court’s oversight or inattention. The first situation involves Articles 104 and 298 of Iran’s Civil Procedure Code, which contain complex and debatable points. The second situation, however, is characterized by a legislative silence, which makes a thorough examination and analysis of the issue all the more necessary.
In this respect, the present study aimed to examine the issue by answering the following questions: What is the purpose of dividing a lawsuit under Articles 104 and 298 of Iran’s Civil Procedure Code? What is the role of the plaintiff’s request for a verdict on part of the claim that is ready for decision? What is the nature of the court’s duty or authority in this regard? Finally, what is the logical solution in situations where part of the lawsuit remains unaddressed?

Literature Review

It seems there is no comprehensive research contribution about the subject of the current inquiry.

Materials and Methods

Since the reality in both situations is practically and consequentially the same, the solutions applicable to one situation can also be applied to the other. Moreover, the similar nature of these two situations calls for their joint examination. Accordingly, the present study analyzed both situations within a single inquiry into the issuance of a verdict on part of a civil lawsuit.

Results and Discussion

Issuing a verdict on part of a lawsuit may therefore be examined in two situations. The first arises when the court, based on Articles 104 and 298 of Iran’s Civil Procedure Code, expressly decides and announces that it will issue a verdict on part of the claim. The second arises when such a situation occurs without any explicit decision or announcement by the court, possibly as a result of the court’s oversight. In practice and in terms of consequences, the reality of these two situations is the same. This similarity calls for their joint examination and for the development of coordinated solutions and analyses.
Regarding the first situation, we encounter repetitive and inconsistent language in Articles 104 and 298 of Iran’s Civil Procedure Code. Article 298, which obliges the court to issue a verdict on the concluded part of a divisible claim, is open to criticism. Similarly, the application of Article 104, which appears to require a verdict on the concluded part of a divisible claim, sometimes leads to illogical results. To modify these provisions, there is the need to interpret Article 104 as a matter of the court’s discretion, except where the petitioner has requested it.
Regarding the second situation, the law provides no explicit ruling. From an analytical perspective, given the similarity of this situation to the first in terms of the factual circumstances, it is appropriate to rely on the ruling of Articles 104 and 298 and to distinguish between divisible and indivisible lawsuits.
In divisible lawsuits, the issuing court should be considered obligated to render a ruling on the part that remained unaddressed. In indivisible lawsuits, however, the issued verdict should be regarded as extending to the part that remained unaddressed, and the division that occurred in issuing the verdict should be treated as an error that may lead to the overturning of the verdict at the stage of appeal.

Conclusion

The purpose of dividing a lawsuit in Articles 104 and 298 of Iran’s Civil Procedure Code should be understood as the separation of a part of a single claim. Nevertheless, the ruling of these articles may also apply to cases involving multiple claims. Imposing an obligation on the court to issue a verdict on the concluded part of the case may, in certain situations, lead to illogical results. Therefore, the ruling contained in Article 298 is open to criticism in this respect. In resolving the apparent conflict between Articles 104 and 298, it is preferable to interpret Article 104 as conferring discretion on the court, except in cases of the petitioner’s request.
Regarding the situation in which part of the lawsuit remains unaddressed, the logical solution is to require the issuing court to render a judgment on the unaddressed part when the lawsuit is divisible. However, if the lawsuit is indivisible, the nature of its indivisibility extends the effect of the issued verdict to the unaddressed part. In such circumstances, the court’s attempt to separate the lawsuit by issuing a verdict only on part of it constitutes a violation of Articles 104 and 298 of Iran’s Civil Procedure Code and may serve as grounds for overturning the verdict at the stage of appeal.