Limits of Judicial Intervention in Factual Matters in Civil Proceedings
Keywords:
Judicial intervention, Factual matters, Civil procedure, Pursuit of truth, Judicial impartiality, Imami jurisprudenceAbstract
Civil proceedings in the Iranian legal system, like other legal systems influenced by the adversarial tradition, are based on the initiative and active participation of the litigating parties in presenting claims and evidence. In this context, one of the fundamental challenges is determining the limits of judicial intervention in factual matters; that is, matters concerning the occurrence of events, circumstances, evidence, and indications that must form the basis of the judgment. On the one hand, the doctrines of Imami jurisprudence and certain procedural regulations oblige the judge to ascertain factual reality and uncover the truth. On the other hand, the principles of impartiality, adversarial proceedings, and judicial security cast doubt on extensive judicial intervention in obtaining and completing evidence. The main question of this study is how, in light of jurisprudential foundations and the rules of civil procedure, the scope and limits of judicial intervention in factual matters can be delineated, and what criteria can be proposed to distinguish between the judge’s “authority,” “duty,” and “prohibition” of intervention. The research method is descriptive–analytical and is based on library research of jurisprudential sources, statutes, judicial practice, and the theoretical literature of comparative law. The findings indicate that Imami jurisprudence, based on the rule requiring judgment in accordance with reality and the prohibition of violating rights, demands an active role from the judge in acquiring knowledge and reaching judicial conviction regarding facts. By contrast, the Civil Procedure Code, while implicitly accepting this foundation, establishes a minimal balance between the ascertainment of factual reality and the preservation of impartiality in provisions such as Articles 2, 199, and 358 of the Civil Procedure Code. The innovation of this study lies in presenting a three-level model for regulating the limits of judicial intervention in factual matters and proposing legislative reforms aimed at enhancing the efficiency and justice of civil proceedings.
Downloads
References
Abdollahi, M. (2015). The limits of the judge's authority in obtaining evidence in Iranian civil procedure. Contemporary Legal Studies Quarterly, 7(2), 55-82.
Al-Shahid al-Thani, Z. a.-D. Masalik al-Afham (Vol. 14). Islamic Publications.
Al-Tusi, M. i. H. (1986). Al-Khilaf (Vol. 6). Society of Seminary Teachers.
Cappelletti, M. (1970). Social and political aspects of civil procedure: Reforms and trends in Western and Eastern Europe. Michigan Law Review, 69(5), 847-901.
Damaska, M. (1973). Evidentiary barriers to conviction and two models of criminal procedure: A comparative study. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 121(3), 506-589.
Damaska, M. (1986). The Faces of Justice and State Authority: A Comparative Approach to the Legal Process. Yale University Press.
Fazel Lankarani, M. (2005). Al-Qada wa al-Shahadat. Jurisprudential Center of the Pure Imams.
Goubau, D. (1996). Judicial activism in fact-finding: Limits and justifications. International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 1(1), 23-44.
Jafaritabar, M. (2021). Judicial persuasion in the process of discovering factual matters in civil claims. Private Law Studies, 52(3), 31-56.
Jolowicz, J. A. (2000). On Civil Procedure. Cambridge University Press.
Katouzian, N. (2008). Civil Procedure: Introductory Course (Vol. 1). Mizan Publications.
Khoei, S. A. (1999). Mabani Takmilat al-Minhaj (Vol. 1). Imam al-Sadiq Institute.
Khomeini, R. Tahrir al-Wasilah (Vol. 2). Institute for Compilation and Publication of Imam Khomeini's Works.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. Springer.
Makarem Shirazi, N. (2021). Al-Qada fi al-Fiqh al-Islami. Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib School.
Mohammadi, J. (2018). The adversarial principle and its role in limiting the judge's authority in factual matters. Private Law Research, 10(3), 65-92.
Mohseni, K. (2008). Judicial impartiality and fair trial. Judiciary Law Journal(64), 79-102.
Moradi, L. (2017). Searching for truth in light of jurisprudential rules and civil procedure. Islamic Jurisprudence and Law Research, 13(2), 45-72.
Mousavi Bojnourdi, S. M. (1998). Al-Qada fi al-Fiqh al-Muqaran. Dar al-Ulum.
Nicolson, D. (1994). Truth, proof and confessions in Scots law. The Modern Law Review, 57(5), 731-761.
Rahpik, M. J. (2010). The rule of necessity of judgment based on the judge's knowledge in Imamiyyah jurisprudence and Iranian law. Islamic Jurisprudence and Law, 6(2), 7-32.
Sanei, H. (2004). Civil Procedure in Light of Imamiyyah Jurisprudence (Vol. 1). Bustan-e Ketab.
Shams, A. (2019). Civil Procedure (Vol. 1). Derak.
Sharifi, M. (2014). Judicial security and the limits of the judge's initiative in obtaining evidence. Judiciary Law Journal(70), 45-74.
Soleimani, H. (2019). Limits of the judge's intervention in evaluating evidence in civil claims. Judiciary Law Quarterly(89), 103-132.
Taheri, A. (2013). Principles governing fair trial and their effect on the judge's role in discovering the truth. Public Law Research, 15(1), 91-120.
Taruffo, M. (2003). Rethinking the nature of the judicial process. European Journal of Legal Studies, 1(2), 1-28.
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Erlbaum.
Twining, W. (2006). Rethinking Evidence: Exploratory Essays (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Downloads
Published
Submitted
Revised
Accepted
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Valiollah Parvizi (Author); Ramazan Dehghan; Mohammad Javad Baghi Zadeh (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
