A Discussion on Inapplicability of the Order of Precedent Number 672 dated 22 December 2004, Issued by the Supreme Court, to the Claim on Delivery of Object of Sale

Issuance of the order of precedent by the Supreme Court as one of the major duties of this court has been emphasized in the article 161 of The Constitution in order to coordinate the courts and even the divisions of the supreme court when these authorities issue different orders in similar cases or as a result of their interpretation of law. On the basis of this article, the article 270 of the legal procedures of the General and Revolutionary Court concerning criminal cases has specified the manner of application and issuance of the order of precedent by the general council of the Supreme Court. Whereas issuance of the order of precedent by the court intends to provide a solution to the legal problems of people in relation to the judiciary administration, related authorities should at the time of putting forth of the issue to the general council of the court and obtaining the order of the council act in such a way that the order is issued in line with the same purpose in order to guide the judicial authorities toward solving people's problems. The present article is aimed at analysis of one of these orders under number of 672 dated 22 December 2004, issued by the general council of the Supreme Court concerning the claim of "dispossession" which seems to have created some problems with respect to another claim under the name of "delivery of the object of sale" petitioned by the buyers of landed properties against the sellers due to an erroneous interpretation of the order. We hope the courts would use the order only in "dispossession" claims without applying it to the claim of obligation of "delivery of the object of sale".