Judicial principles and studies
Recovery of Leased Property under the Financial Leasing Law and Summary Court Procedures
Decision reference: تمييز حقوق هيئة عامة رقم (5249-2025)
A recovery petition based on Article (22) of the Financial Leasing Law is treated as an urgent application subject to Articles (32) and (33) of the Civil Procedure Law, together with the law’s specific procedures. The summary judge decides on the apparent evidence only and must not rule on the substantive merits or interpret the financing contract.
Leases and use rights
Judicial principles and studies
Updated: 10 September 2026
Editorial summary of a judicial principle or decision; consult the source below and do not treat the firm as the author of the decision.
Smart reading summary
Understand and share the study quickly
A recovery petition based on Article (22) of the Financial Leasing Law is treated as an urgent application subject to Articles (32) and (33) of the Civil Procedure Law, together with the law’s specific procedures. The summary judge decides on the apparent evidence only and must not rule on the substantive merits or interpret the financing contract.
Key points
- Subject
- Summary
- Practical significance
Useful for: Useful for initial reading and identifying questions that may need legal review.
This automatic summary is based on the published text. It is not legal advice and does not replace checking official sources and reviewing the facts with a qualified lawyer.
AI generation is optional and subject to Gemini usage limits. Do not send client data or attachments from this card.
Subject
A recovery application based on Article (22) of the Financial Leasing Law is classified as an urgent petition and is heard under Articles (32) and (33) of the Civil Procedure Law, while observing the specific procedures set out in the Financial Leasing Law.
Summary
- The jurisdiction of summary courts rests on two conditions: urgency and without touching the substantive right. The summary judge resolves the petition on the basis of apparent evidence only and may not decide on the substance of the right. - The validity of judicial notice (the formal warning) is also assessed by apparent evidence: if the claimant follows the statutory sequence of notifications under Articles (7, 8, 9) of the Civil Procedure Law and resorts to publication only after personal service proves impossible, that mode of service is legally proper. Examination or interpretation of the financing contract’s terms to evaluate the notice’s validity constitutes an intrusion into the merits and belongs to the court of subject-matter jurisdiction. - These principles were set out in connection with Appeal in Rights of a Public Body No. (5249-2025).
Practical significance
- Treat recovery petitions under the Financial Leasing Law as urgent proceedings and apply the prescribed sequence of notifications to secure the validity of judicial notice. - Summary judges should confine their review to apparent evidence and refrain from adjudicating the substantive contractual dispute, which is reserved for the court of subject-matter jurisdiction. The above content is a general educational summary and is not a judicial text or legal advice.
Frequently asked questions
Subject?
A recovery application based on Article (22) of the Financial Leasing Law is classified as an urgent petition and is heard under Articles (32) and (33) of the Civil Procedure Law, while observing the specific procedures set out in the Financial Leasing Law.
Summary?
- The jurisdiction of summary courts rests on two conditions: urgency and without touching the substantive right. The summary judge resolves the petition on the basis of apparent evidence only and may not decide on the substance of the right. - The validity of judicial notice (the formal warning) is also assessed by apparent evidence: if the claimant follows the statutory sequence of notifications under Articles (7, 8, 9) of the Civil Procedure Law and resorts to publication only after personal service proves impossible, that mode of service is legally proper. Examination or interpretation of the financing contract’s terms to evaluate the notice’s validity constitutes an intrusion into the merits and belongs to the court of subject-matter jurisdiction. - These principles were set out in connection with Appeal in Rights of a Public Body No. (5249-2025).
Practical significance?
- Treat recovery petitions under the Financial Leasing Law as urgent proceedings and apply the prescribed sequence of notifications to secure the validity of judicial notice. - Summary judges should confine their review to apparent evidence and refrain from adjudicating the substantive contractual dispute, which is reserved for the court of subject-matter jurisdiction. The above content is a general educational summary and is not a judicial text or legal advice.
Sources and references
Verify the official text and latest amendments before relying on this material professionally.
Study collection
Work and employment
Browse the other studies in this subject through its dedicated topical section.
Open study collectionA related service path
Legal consultation and studies
If this study is close to your matter, review the service scope and contact the firm to discuss the facts and documents.
Review the related serviceRelated Jordanian-law guides
Contextual links to related public guide routes; they remain limited to Jordanian law and do not replace matter review.