THE EMERGENCE AND CHALLENGE OF THE RULE OF CIVIL JUDGE'S NEUTRALITY

There is a long-standing rule in Iranian Civil Procedural system known as “The Rule of Maane Tahsile Dalil” {preventing judge from taking evidence} being equivalent to “The Rule of Judge Neutrality” in European Law. According to this rule, the civil judge administer the evidences passively, namely, he/she can not hear the evidences unless at the request of the parties. Traditionally, Iranian jurists have been regarding the principle of impartiality as the base of this rule without distinguishing it’s difference from rule of neutrality. For the first time in the Iranian legal literature, this formal essay aims to analysis the western rule of Maane Tahsile Dalil and the Islamic rule of Maane Talghin Dalil and deals with the differences and outcomes of the principle of impartiality and the principle of neutrality. Finally, this essay concludes that, on the contrary to the traditional view, what forms the base of the Rule is not the principle of impartiality but it is the principle of party-disposition. Indeed, the Principle of impartiality constitutes the base of the rule of Maane Talghin Dalil {suggestion of evidence}. In addition, the rule of judge's neutrality has been replaced by the principle of cooperation.