Review and Analysis of the Judge's Discretion in Uncovering the Truth

Abstract

The Iranian legislator has focused its efforts on uncovering the truth and avoiding the mere resolution of disputes without achieving this significant goal. This approach is reflected in various laws, such as Article 8 of the Judiciary Law enacted on June 15, 1977, the amendments to the Civil Procedure Code in 2000, specifically Article 199 of the Civil Procedure Code, and more recently, the proposal to add Article 84 bis to Article 84 of the Civil Procedure Code. The concept of dynamic adjudication, in addition to being explicitly mentioned in the works of various scholars, has also been expressed using other terms, such as "proper adjudication" or "the active role of the judge." The collective intent behind these terms is to emphasize the avoidance of stagnation, the prevention of regression, and maintaining a progressive and forward-moving judiciary system aimed at uncovering hidden truths in cases under review and ensuring that justice is served to its rightful party. Streamlining the civil procedure process is a specialized task that also involves artistry and prudence. It is specialized because even the smallest changes to the current adjudication process, without considering the subtleties of procedural law and the findings of skilled and dedicated judges, will not be welcomed by the judiciary. Therefore, the lack of cooperation from judges in implementing procedural reforms can lead to the failure of lofty objectives. It is artistic because progress in this direction requires particular foresight, and rigid measures such as enacting laws, issuing directives, and adopting regulations will not succeed without judicial cooperation. Finally, it requires prudence, as the bitter experience of unconsidered measures has not yet been forgotten.