Civil Appeal Authority 19443-09-25 Fathia Abu Dalu v. Khalil Abu Dalu

Civil Appeal Authority 19443-09-25

I have before me an application for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Jerusalem District Court (Judge T.  Bar-Asher), dated June 11, 2025, onAppealing a Registrar's Decision 26125-11-23.  As part of the judgment, the Applicants' appeal against the decision of the Jerusalem District Court Registrar, dated October 25, 2023, was rejected.  Other Municipality Requests 61228-07-23 (Registration P.  Neuwirth), in which the Applicants' appeal against the judgment of the Jerusalem Magistrate's Court, dated April 24, 2023, was deleted, due to a delay in its submission, in the case Civilian 3838-09-22 (The judge A.  Lang).

Background

1. The proceeding before me is the result of a series of proceedings and judicial decisions, on the procedural level, given by the Jerusalem Magistrate's Court, the Jerusalem District Court, and this Court. I will address these briefly, focusing on the judicial decisions relevant to our case:

A monetary claim was filed by the Respondent against the Applicants and another person in the Jerusalem Magistrate's Court (Civil Case 3838-09-22; Judge A.  Lang).  The other person settled his affairs with the respondent in a settlement agreement, and accordingly, I will not refer to him later in this decision.  The applicants filed a statement of defense in which they denied the respondent's claims against them.  It was decided that the pre-trial hearing will take place in the Magistrate's Court in Beit Shemesh, on April 24, 2023.  Applicant 1 did not appear for the hearing on the set date, stating that she intended to be represented by Applicant 2.  Applicant 2 also did not appear for the hearing, due to his accidental appearance in another court.  Even after Applicant 2 was informed, that morning, of the correct location of the hearing, Applicant 2 did not appear in court.  Against the background of the above, a judgment was rendered on the same day, against the Applicants, and they were ordered (jointly and severally, together with the Additional Defendant) to pay the sum of ILS 119,200.

2. The applicants filed a motion to annul the Magistrate's Court's judgment. On May 23, 2023, the Magistrate's Court (Judge   Lang) ruled that only Applicant 2 has a satisfactory explanation as to his failure to appear for the pre-trial hearing, and therefore the judgment will be annulled in respect of him alone, to the extent that he deposits, by June 11, 2023, a sum of ILS 10,000 in the court's coffers, to cover the respondent's expenses.  The Applicants filed a motion for reconsideration of this decision, which was rejected by the Magistrate's Court on May 31, 2023.  The financial deposit in accordance with the court's decision was not made within the stipulated time period, and accordingly, on June 12, 2023, the Magistrate's Court ruled that its judgment of April 24, 2023 would remain in place, even with respect to Applicant 2.

The Applicants filed an appeal against the Magistrate's Court's judgment to the Jerusalem District Court (Civil Appeal 61228-07-23).  A motion was filed against the appeal to dismiss it in limine, on the grounds that it was filed after the deadline for its submission had passed.  On October 25, 2023, the District Court's decision was given (the registration of the P.  Neuwirth), in which the request for dismissal was granted and the appeal was dismissed, due to its late submission (hereinafter: Registration Decision).

3. The Applicants filed a Registrar Appeal against the Registration Decision to the Jerusalem District Court (Appeal against Registrar's Decision 26125-11-23; Judge Bar-Asher).  On December 18, 2023, this appeal was also dismissed.  The District Court ruled that the Registrar's decision constitutes a "judgment", and not a "different decision", and therefore the way to obtain it is by filing an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal (i.e., to this Court), in accordance with Section 96(a) of the Courts Law [Consolidated Version] 5744-1984 (hereinafter: the Courts Law), and not by filing a Registrar Appeal to the District Court, as the Applicants did.
4. The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916Against this background, the applicants filed two proceedings. Initially, the Applicants filed a request with the District Court for an extension of the time for filing an application for leave to appeal the Magistrate's Court's judgment.  This request was rejected on January 26, 2024, when it was not found that there were any special reasons justifying granting it.  At the same time, the Applicants filed a petition to this Court (High Court of Justice 4184/24, Judge   Amit, Judge Y.  Willner, and myself), in which they petitioned for an order nisi to instruct the trial courts to explain why "[we] did not give the Applicants their day in court" (note added - Y.  20).  The petition was rejected, inter alia, due to the existence of an alternative remedy.  Thus I determined, with the consent of my friends, on the same matter:

12-34-56-78 Chekhov v.  State of Israel, P.D.  51 (2)