Investigating the inconsistency of judgments in extraordinary ways of protesting against judgments with a comparative study in the civil procedure of Iran and France

The aim of trial in contentious affairs is to remove action and ending dispute between litigants. The action usually ends by a competent court’s final decision; but it is not finished, if the contradictory judgments have been held about the same subject matter, because one or both of them are definitely unjust. In order to resolve this inconsistency, Iranian Code of Civil Procedure provided the retrial (whenever the opposing Judgements are issued by the same court) and appeal (when the inconsistent judgements are considered by the same or different courts). By examining the conditions of each of these two methods, it appears that the territory of dissolving contrary judgments by appeal is wider than by retrial. Given that each of these methods have a specific base and foundation; it should not be possible to utilize them on the same cause. Even if there is contradiction between two decisions of the same court, the appeal can remove inconsistency. Therefore, the feasibility of retrial is unnecessary and for this reason, it is necessary to amend article 426 of the Civil Procedure Code.