The legal nature of the transaction of voyeurism by the original

Article 252 of the Civil Code states: "It is not necessary to authorize or deny immediately if the delay is caused by the original party, the transaction can disrupt the transaction." Now the question is, what is the meaning of the word "can" and the phrase "disrupt the deal"?In other words, what does "can" mean and what is the nature of "disrupting the transaction" and with which well-known legal format can be justified? Can Asil ask the court to break up the deal? Or will the voyeurism deal be disrupted by noble will? In this case, which of the transactions is the application of genuine will in the form of one of the disruptors of the transactions?The answers to these questions, in addition to the theoretical importance, have practical effects such as determining the type of demand during the litigation, declaring or establishing the sentence and determining the time limit of the possibility of allowing the yard to pry. However, only some jurists and jurists have dealt with this issue in a transient and different interpretation regarding the above questions. The present paper discovers all the available and possible opinions and then rehabilitates them with descriptive-analytical method under the title of judicial annulment theories, cucumber legal termination, abstinence from necessity, option of termination of permissible transaction, rejection of non-penetrating voyeurism transaction, referral and independent necessity, and among them has strengthened and introduced the independent theory as al-Mukhtar's theory.