Default Judgment Without Proper Service
C sues D in a civil court for 800,000,000 rials. The court issues a summons to D's registered address. The bailiff returns the summons with a note that D was 'not present' and leaves it with a neighbor who is not a relative and does not sign a receipt. No second attempt is made and no publication is ordered. The court proceeds and enters judgment in absentia (ghiyabi) against D for the full amount. D learns of the judgment three months later when enforcement officers attach his car. D files a protest against the default judgment (e'teraz be hokm-e ghiyabi) within the statutory window. The court must decide whether the judgment can stand and what the correct procedural path is.
1. Was service valid, and what is the consequence for the default judgment?
Read the worked answer
Service was defective. Valid service on a natural person requires delivery to the addressee personally, or to a spouse/relative/resident at the address who signs, or - failing that - the statutory fallback of publication after the prescribed attempts. Leaving the paper with an unrelated neighbor who does not sign a receipt satisfies none of these. Because service was invalid, the defendant was deprived of the opportunity to appear, and the default judgment rests on a void foundation.
Consequence: the judgment is vulnerable. The proper remedy is not appeal but the protest against a default judgment (e'teraz), which D has filed within the window. The court hearing the protest should examine service first; once it finds service invalid, it sets aside the default judgment and re-hears the case on the merits. D should also raise the defective service as an independent ground so the court does not merely re-enter judgment on the same record.
2. If service had been valid and D simply ignored the summons, would the protest still succeed?
Read the worked answer
No. Where service is valid and the defendant, though properly summoned, fails to appear, the court may enter a default judgment, but it must be a judgment in absentia that carries the statutory protest right. In that scenario the protest is a fresh hearing on the merits: D may present defenses, but he cannot succeed merely by showing he was absent - his absence was his own default. The protest court would examine the substance. D's strongest argument in that scenario would be that the judgment was in fact rendered as a contested judgment (hokm-e hozuri) despite his non-appearance, which would strip his protest right; he should check the judgment's label, because mislabeling is a recognized ground for protest.