Department of Law, Go.C., Islamic Azad University, Gorgan, Iran
Abstract: (16 Views)
Article 63 of the Iranian Code of Civil Procedure prohibits any change to the claim or its value after the first hearing. However, judicial practice lacks a unified criterion for distinguishing a “prohibited change” from a “permissible adjustment,” and this inconsistency has led to conflicting judgments across courts nationwide. Using an analytical-critical method and examining 42 judgments from various branches of the Supreme Court and the Tehran Province Courts of Appeal between 1385 and 1400 (2006–2021), this study proposes the “Originating Event” theory. Under this theory, the criterion is the stability or change of “the set of legal and material events giving rise to the right,” not merely a change in the monetary amount stated in the claim section. The Originating Event theory has three pillars: stability of the elements giving rise to the right, continuity of the legal relationship, and non-creation of a new right. The triple test (substantive characterization, defendant’s defense, good faith) and the three-step model derived from it provide a practical, step-by-step framework for judicial decision-making. A comparative study with French law shows that the French system, with its “sufficient connection” criterion and broad judicial discretion, is more flexible and provides more effective financial sanctions to prevent abuse. Finally, a draft amended article and a set of legislative and executive proposals are presented.
Kaviani F. The "Originating Event" Theory and the Three-Step Model for Determining Change of Claim under Article 63 of the Iranian Code of Civil Procedure (A Comparative Study with French Law). ILR 2026; 7 (5) : 8 URL: http://ilrjournal.ir/article-1-386-en.html