PRIVATE LAW
Year:2014 | Volume:2 | Issue:6|Papers Count:6

Procedural acts may be invalid because of formal or substantive Irregularity. There is a distinction between invalidity of instruments owning to formal irregularity and invalidity of documents due to essential defect; a distinction that affects nature, its plea time and subsequent regularization of document. In French law, formal invalidity must be expressly provided for in Law, except where it is a case of a failure to comply with an important formality or public policy. However, plea of invalidity based on failure to comply with substantive rules relating to written pleadings shall be admissible without being necessary for the party to raise and prove any prejudice to him even in situations where the invalidity does not arise under express provisions. In Iranian law, there is no such distinction; there are rather conflicts of opinions on some cases for which Iranian law has not adopted any regulation. The issue of enforcement in Iranian procedural law needs to be revised and developed.

The purpose of adopting rules and regulation for the determination of courts’ jurisdiction is to categorize duties of courts on the basis of subject-matter of disputes, crime and so on. In civil procedure rules, jurisdiction is normally divided into subjective-matter, territorial and value jurisdictions. There are situations in which courts are given competence, for specific purposes, to deal with a dispute, even though they do not have the above-mentioned jurisdictions. This is called prorogation jurisdiction. This article aims to examine jurisdictional rules and prorogation jurisdiction cases.