Establishing a legal dispute once the opponent is present in the case

Abstract

The convening of the dispute does not depend on the completion of judicial notification of the case. Legislation has approved other means of convening it, including the presence of the opponent before the court. However, the legislation has not had a unified opinion regarding attendance and its role. There are those who linked the idea of presence to false notification, and some of them approved the idea of the adversary’s mere presence as a means of convening the dispute. This difference appears more in the writings of jurisprudence and is due to the difference between two trends: the first sees that adherence to legal formalism is a legal necessity that cannot be avoided, while the other trend believes that simplifying formalism and adopting justifications for achieving knowledge of the case without legal means is something that should be taken into account absolutely because it has a role. To preserve the judicial procedure and subsequently the right subject to be protected Adopting the idea of attendance as a parallel procedure as an alternative to judicial notification, regardless of the status of judicial notification, that is, without linking it to the invalidity of the notification, while ensuring that the opponent’s right to defense is not disturbed by his mere presence, that is, his knowledge of the case is the same as the knowledge achieved by judicial notification, provided that the text is in the following form (in the presence of the opponent or whoever is present His presence in the specified session forfeits the right to claim the invalidity of the notification, unless that violates his right to defense, and his presence is considered evidence that his right is not violated unless proven otherwise