"C. I am of the opinion that the correct test that we must apply in our case is to answer the question, whether the role played by the District Court in its decision to amend the inheritance order in the mannermentioned above, is a function that was imposed on it by law. If the answer to this question is: Yes; then there is no escaping the conclusion that it did not exceed the scope of its authority in giving the said decision, even if it is based on a misinterpretation of section 21(a) of the Condominiums Law. In other words, my view is that the problem of jurisdiction that arose should be solved according to the approach: what is the function that the District Court was assigned to fulfill, and whether it would have fulfilled this function when it decided to amend the registration order as amended, and not according to the approach: what is the content of the order that it gave and whether this content is consistent with the definition of a "registration order" in the law." (My emphasis - G.H.).
I will note that in a case similar to the case before us, and even more extreme, a petition was heard that dealt with a suspended sentence given by a judicial body, the military court, when it was argued in the petition to the High Court that the military court had sentenced a suspended sentence in violation of the law and therefore the ground for lack of authority should be intervened. The Supreme Court ruled that it is not possible to intervene in this judgment on the grounds of lack of authority, and I will quote:
"In accordance with this test, it should be said in the case at hand that the District Military Court, in imposing a suspended sentence on the appellant, fulfilled the function assigned to him by law, or in other words, he fulfilled the function that he was assigned to fulfill. If so, it must be said that even if the court erred as to the duration of the probation, this mistake fell within the scope of its authority, and did not cause a deviation from its authority. Compare: In Appeal 1/81 Nagar v. Nagar [3], at p. 383; High Court of Justice 2222/99 Gabbay v. The Great Rabbinical Court [4], at p. 426. "