یگانگی (وحدت) منشا در دادرسی مدنی ایران و فرانسه

منشا  دعوی از آغاز تاکنون مفهومی پرمناقشه و مبهم در گستره‌ دادرسی مدنی ایران و فرانسه بوده است. این اصطلاح در قانون آیین دادرسی مدنی 1379 ایران و دیگر قانون‌ها و نیز در نوشته‌های حقوق دادرسی در کنار برخی واژه های دیگر مانند جهت، سبب و نیز در ترکیب «وحدت منشا» به‌کار رفته است. پرسشی که مطرح می‌شود این است که منشا چه تفاوتی با سبب، جهت و منبع تعهد دارد؟ و نیز این اصطلاح در ترکیب «وحدت منشا» که در قانون آیین دادرسی مدنی ایران به‌کار رفته است چه معنایی می‌دهد؟ نسبت میان منشا با توصیف دعوا در دادرسی مدنی ایران و فرانسه چیست؟ به باور ما جهت در دو معنای عام و خاص به‌کار می‌رود و واژه جهات در ماده 51 و ماده های 135 و 136 ق.آ.د. اعم از سبب و منشا است. همچنین منشا عام‌تر از سبب است و گاه جهت نیز همچون ماده 520 ق.آ.د.م در معنای خاص به‌کار رفته است که برابر با سبب است. منشا در ترکیب «وحدت منشا» در معنای حقیقی خود به‌عنوان ضابطه‌ تشخیص ارتباط میان دعواهای طاری ‌است و در دادرسی مدنی ایران بر خلاف فرانسه وحدت منشا به‌عنوان اماره‌ قانونی تخلف‌ناپذیر برای تشخیص ارتباط میان دعواها عمل می‌کند که اثبات خلاف آن امکان‌پذیر نیست.

unity of cause in the civil procedure of iran and france

in persian and french language, the word cause is used in various senses. in everyday language, this word means: for, because of, reason, origin, source, etc. and in french it designates the origin of a state or a circumstance. in legal language, the term cause of action is essential to a civil suit, since without a cause of action a civil suit cannot arise. in iranian civil procedure and in french civil procedure cause has always been a controversial and ambiguous concept. the cause is used in articles 15, 17, 98, and 141 of the iranian civil procedure law of 2000. the word &cause& is still used in another sense when it comes to the substance of the law.methodologythis research is descriptive and analytical, comparative and is based on the library resources method.conclusionthe main questions raised in this research are: what is the difference between “cause” and similar terms such as source of obligation? what is the meaning of the term &unity of cause” used in iranian civil procedure law? what is the relationship between   &cause&   and qualification in the civil procedures of iran and france?it seems the term (jahat in persian) mentioned in article 51 of the code of civil procedure 2000 include both the cause and “des moyens”. there is also a difference between cause and the “des moyens”. in fact, jajat (in persian) is more general than the cause. for example, in the case of declaring the cancellation of the sale based on the option of delaying the price or the option of violation of the description, the sale contract is the “cause&   and the option of delaying the price or the option of violation of the description is the moyen. and the existence of the cause and the moyen together form the jahat (in persian).also, the unity of cause is different from the description, so for example, when the plaintiff declares that in the contract between him and the defendant, it is specified that there will be no contract if any of the checks are not paid, and he claims that the checks have not been paid and he has written the title of his lawsuit as termination of the contract, but before the first hearing according to article 98 of the civil procedure law 2000, he amends the subject of his lawsuit to declaration of rescission, the unity of cause is preserved. because in these cases, only the description of the request has changed, and the cause, that is, the legal behaviour from which the claimed right originates, has not changed.also, in the issue of amending the title of the claim, in cases where the title of the claim changes from the obligation to fulfil the obligation (such as the obligation to deliver the goods) to the declaration of invalidity of the contract before the first hearing, the unity of cause, which according to article 98 is one of the conditions for amendment the title is still exists. because in examining the existence of the cause, we are dealing with the physical and behavioural aspect of the done work, and its legal validity is not taken into consideration in terms of whether the done legal act is correct or invalid. in this case, even if the contract is invalid, there is still the condition of unity of cause, which is necessary to amend the title of the petition. in fact, in this sense, the invalid contract is presented as a &document and reason to prove the claim&.unlike french civil procedure, in iran, the cause is absolute presumption or legal presumption to determine the connection between related claims and incidental claims, which cannot be destroyed by any evidence to the contrary.