Rulings on the Judge's Delay of his Judgment

Abstract

1. The meaning of delaying the pronouncement of judgement is to postpone pronouncing the binding formulation that settles the contentious issues under his jurisdiction to the appropriate time by a general mandate holder.
2. Principally, the litigation procedures shall take the sufficient usual time, but the judge may deliberately delay, if he considers that giving the litigation procedures more time than usual has a clear benefit rather than the consequent harm caused by the commitment to the usual time.
3. One of the lawful delay conditions cited by the jurists is when the judge foresees that the settlement can be reached among the opponents.
4. Another lawful delay condition is to delay the judgment at the request of one of the opponents.
5. Another lawful delay condition is to delay the judgment if the judge becomes suspicious of the evidence.
6. Another lawful delay condition is to delay the judgment if the judge is not convinced by the opinion of the advisory party, and wants to consult another party.
7. The judge himself takes the precaution to clarify the truth and this is an extra favour, but he is excused if he does not do so. However, it may be a must if three controls are achieved:

First control: The judge shall not have any preference for one party over another, otherwise it will be considered as a forbidden instruction and clear injustice.

Second control: The judge comes across some prelude actions or events through which he thinks he can reach the truth or confirm it.

Third control: It does not entail greater harm.

1. Jurists have agreed that it is not permissible for the judge to delay the judgment without an excuse, whether intentionally or negligently.
2. By considering the seriousness of the consequences of the intentional delay without an excuse, whether to be by the judge or one of his assistants, oversight actors must reduce it, and hold into account those who are found guilty, in order to preserve the reputation of the judiciary. As it is considered the optimum authority to eliminate injustice, it is not appropriate to be the cause of a new injustice.