"There are parties whose time is required for the proceeding, as they are parties necessary in order to enable the court to 'rule efficiently and completely' (Regulation 24 of the old Regulations). These are parties who clearly have a direct interest in the outcome of the proceeding and are liable to be harmed by its results. Therefore, the hearing cannot be held without them (HCJ 676/61 Zadok v. Rishon LeZion Settlers Company Ltd., IsrSC 16 144, 147-148 (1962); the Mount Carmel Committee case, at pp. 266-269; Civil Appeal Authority 9022/14 Zehavian v. Movadi, para. 19 [Nevo] (February 2, 2015); Goren, at p. 211)."
- Fifth:, the concern of defendant No. 1 thatHarvested Contradictory determinations, according to which in the first proceeding, the court ordered the cancellation of the agreement and restitution, while in the present proceeding, an order will be given that the agreement be fulfilled in the near future At the same time, you will have to return the funds to the Hajj It is not in its place. Approximate enforcement is a right that is given, inter alia, in the hands of the party injured by the breach of the agreement. If he chooses to use this drug, his existence will be partial and approximate, and not complete. Therefore, the granting of a remedy of approximate enforcement does not contradict the fact that the agreement cannot be fully implemented, but rather it is a result that derives from this determination, and it is connected to the choice of the injured party to demand the approximate fulfillment of the agreement, taking into account that it cannot be fully fulfilled. Of course, if an order is given to enforce the agreement in the near future, the obligation to return the full consideration will automatically be abolished Therefore, the fear of contradictory assertions or contradictory results is misplaced.
Therefore, the approximate existence of the agreement does not contradict the impossibility of upholding the agreement as it is. In the first proceeding, it was determined that the agreement could not be fulfilled since it was not possible to grant Hajj ownership of a specific lot. In the current proceeding, it is requested that he be granted the rights he acquired in the suspended company. If the second proceeding is accepted, it does not nullify the first proceeding, but rather constitutes a derivative and possible result of the choice of the injured party, which is Hajj. For these reasons, the defendants' claims for the existence of a cause of action should be rejected.