On the other hand, elsewhere in their book, Bin-Nun and Havkin express their position that it is appropriate to adopt an arrangement according to which there is room to allow the trial court to amend its decisions in a broader range of cases than those that determine In section 81 to the Courts Law. This is because the trial court is in a preferable position over the appellate court to correct factual errors in a judgment or decision it has given, and therefore the horizontal correction must be permitted for reasons of efficiency (Bin-Nun and Havkin, pp. 447-449). It seems to me that this opinion is actually consistent with my position, according to which it is sufficient for the parties to agree to hold a hearing on the merits of the amendment request, in order for the court to acquire jurisdiction under Section 81(b) to the Courts Law.
Since I have discussed the principle above, as it is in my opinion, it remains to examine its application to the circumstances of the case at hand.
- As to the respondent's consent, it is appropriate to refer to her position in her preliminary response to the applicant's petition to the High Court of Justice (section 2): "The petitioner's arguments deserve to be heard and clarified, but the more appropriate procedure to do so in this exceptional case is a request to annul a judgment, which will be heard by the court that heard and decided the appeal." (See similar wording in paragraph 13 of the preliminary response).
In view of this position, the petition issued a decision directing the applicant to file an application in the framework of the appeal file and ordering a stay of proceedings in the petition until after a decision is made on such an application (the judge's decision). Khirbat Kabub, dated June 15, 2025, in Gaddari High Court of Justice 57436-05-25). Following this decision, the Applicant filed the present application.
Moreover, throughout the hearing of the motion for annulment, the respondent refrained from arguing that there was any difficulty, within the level of authority, in granting the request, and argued only on the merits of the matter.