عنوان مقاله [English]
In the legal proceeding, should an oathbe taken in case of
lack of proof on the part of plaintiff, it would cause
extinction of the claim of the plaintiff. Now, if it was
proved that the oath has been false when the definite
judgment has been issued, we encounter the problem of
unlawfulness of reversal of judgment of the judge in
jurisprudence and that of validity of what is judged in the
Iranian and French laws.
Majority of jurists hold that hadiths reveal that oath of the
defendant renders all rights of the plaintiff as to the
disputed property null, but should oath of the defendant be
false he must naturally return the disputed property to the
plaintiff. In case of confession of the oath taker to
falsehood of his oath, he is legally obliged to return the
property and all rights of the plaintiff, including the right
to claim again, will return.
In the French law, announcing falsehood of the oath after
the verdict has been issued is considered among facets of
re-trial, and in the Iranian law it can be treated as an
instance of trickery, deception, and a facet of re-trial.