Nor do I see the need for the Patriarchate's attempt to portray the contacts between the parties in a disturbing manner as an attempt by the "Jews" to oppress the "Christians," as well as its claim that it is inconceivable that such conduct would have taken place against a Jewish or Muslim organization. False claimsוּThese points were made in vain, without any real evidentiary basis, and we should regret the manner in which the matter was presented and the attempt to burden religious elements on the contractual dispute that arose between the parties.
- Another point that must be addressed at the outset is the Patriarchate's argument that the proceeding should be postponed due to the timing of its submission. According to her, Himanuta's wait until the date on which her lawsuit was filed - about two and a half years after the last draft of the settlement agreement between the parties was replaced, and after a judgment was given in the criminal proceeding and it was determined that it was indeed a fraudulent transaction - is a "delay" that was done deliberately and amounts to abuse of legal proceedings.
This argument should also be rejected. For the purposes of the discussion, I am willing to accept the assumption that, as a rule, if Reuven believes that he entered into a binding agreement with Shimon, and Shimon denies this, it can be expected that Reuven will take steps to enforce the agreement and file a lawsuit if necessary, and will not wait for developments in other proceedings to find out whether they will improve his chances of a lawsuit. However, in the circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that the alleged "delay" on the part of Himanuta justified the dismissal of her claim.
On the procedural level, it should be noted that the claim of the Patriarchate regarding the delay in filing the lawsuit, as well as the claim that the claim should be dismissed because it is an abuse of legal proceedings, are preliminary arguments that should be raised in the statement of defense (Regulation 13(1) For the Regulations Civil Procedure, The Nine"T-2018; יששכר Count-Zvi the Civil Procedure Reform: Guide of the Perplexed §53 p. 144 (Digital Third Edition, 2024)). This was not done in this case. However, since the process was opened in 2011, and in the absence of an identical provision in the Regulations Civil Procedure, התשמ"IV1984, I do not see it necessary to reject the argument on the basis of this reasoning.