تمییز دعوی از دفاع: نقدی بر مواد 18، 142 و 275 قانون آیین دادرسی مدنی

موادّ 18، 142 و 275 قانون آیین دادرسی مدنی به‌گونه‌ای انشا شده که دعوی و دفاع را از هم تفکیک و جدا کرده است. به‌همین‌سبب این سوال مطرح است که آیا دعوی و دفاع دو مفهوم جداگانه است یا اینکه مفاهیمی مشابه. اما، بسته‌به اینکه از‌طرف کدام‌یک از اطراف دعوی (خواهان یا خوانده) طرح گردد، دعوی یا دفاع نامیده می‌شود. این پرسش ذهن حقوقدانان و قضات را به خود مشغول کرده و در آرای دادگاه‌ها[1] و نشست‌های قضایی قضات دادگستری[2] به آن پرداخته شده است. تمییز دفاع از دعوی از دغدغه‌های نویسندگان دادرسی مدنی نیز بوده و می‌باشد.[3] در این مقاله دو مفهوم دفاع و دعوی با‌توجه‌به موارد تمثیلی مذکور در مادۀ 18 و 142 قانون آیین‌دادرسی مدنی مورد‌ مطالعه قرار گرفته و سعی شده این دو مفهوم تبیین گردد. درهمین‌راستا و براساس اینکه در کتاب‌های فقهی به این دو مفهوم بهتر پرداخته شده است، ابتدا این مفاهیم در فقه و سپس حقوق فرانسه مورد‌ مطالعه قرار گرفته شده است و سرانجام با نظر به رویۀ قضایی تلاش شده ضوابط تشخیص و تمایز دعوی از دفاع مشخص گردد.

distinguishing claim from defense: a critique of articles 18, 142, and 275 of the iranian code of civil procedure

to distinguish defense from claim, it is first necessary to define claim and identify its elements. then, defense and its concept must be examined, as well as the relationship between claim and petition and the difference between these two concepts. subsequently, the concept of plaintiff (mudda’i) and defendant (mudda’i alayh) must be clarified in order to determine where each of the parties to the litigation stands in the proceedings – whether as plaintiff or defendant – as their positions may continuously change throughout the litigation. furthermore, the relationship between plaintiff and defendant and the terms claimant (khahān) and respondent (khwandeh) in civil procedure should be examined to determine whether the plaintiff is the same as the claimant and the defendant is the same as the respondent, and whether these titles are synonymous and have a matching relationship, or whether these titles are not identical and differ from each other (article 275 of the code of civil procedure). in this regard, and to clarify the difference between claim and defense, french law will also be examined as far as possible, since the former code of civil procedure and, before that, the code of principles of trials were adapted from french law and jurisprudence. however, considering that the theological (fiqh) definitions of claim, plaintiff, and defendant are more precise, and that jurists have shown greater subtlety and discernment in this regard, further study will have a more theological aspect. to better understand the subject, an attempt will be made to study judicial judgments as much as possible.literature reviewit is worth noting that while iranian civil procedure textbooks do not offer a clear discussion on differentiating between defense and claim.                (i)     materials and methodsthe study adopts a descriptive-analytical approach and employs library research methods to examine the data.results and discussionarticles 18, 142, and 275 of the iranian code of civil procedure are drafted in a manner that distinguishes and separates the concepts of claim (da’va) and defense (defa’). this raises the question of whether a claim and a defense are two distinct concepts, or whether they are similar concepts that are named differently (claim or defense) depending on which party to the litigation (plaintiff or defendant) raises them. this question has occupied the minds of legal scholars and judges, and has been addressed in court decisions and judicial panels of the judiciary. differentiating between defense and claim has also been a concern of civil procedure scholars. this article examines the two concepts of defense and claim, considering the illustrative examples mentioned in articles 18 and 142 of the code of civil procedure.conclusionas noted, a claim (da’va) consists of asserting something contrary to the presumption of innocence, apparent fact, or evidence, for the purpose of seeking a right or property... against another, before a judge. if the claimant (khahān) alters the presumption, apparent fact, or evidence in their favor, based on the evidence presented to the court, then the respondent’s (khwandeh) defense must be to prove the claimant’s lack of right. thus, the respondent, in defending themselves, is making a claim. this is the case in most lawsuits. if the respondent’s goal is only to prove the claimant’s lack of right, in whole or in part, the respondent’s action is a claim in the position of defense. these claims are indeed claims, but claims for the purpose of defense, and as stated in article 18 and the final part of article 142 of the code of civil procedure, do not require a petition (dadkhast).however, if the respondent’s claim, in addition to defense, is also a claim of a right against the claimant or the original third party (who is considered the claimant), it is a defense and a counterclaim (da’vay-e motaqābel) and requires a petition. therefore, against a claimant who has altered the presumption of the respondent’s innocence in their favor, or whose claim is based on convincing evidence, it is in fact a claim, but a claim whose purpose is to prove the claimant’s lack of right or the expiration of the claimant’s right. such a claim, even if it has all the characteristics of a claim, does not require a petition from a procedural perspective. not only is this the procedural difference between it and the claimant’s claim, but the legislator should have drafted articles 18, 142, and 375 of the code of civil procedure with greater clarity, and should have defined claim and defense, and specified their procedural differences and timing of their presentation in the proceedings.