Abstract

Judicial reconciliation is one of the most important alternative means of resolving disputes between adversaries in a friendly manner. It aims at settling Judicial claims quickly, and Improving the functioning of justice and the speed of its performance by obtaining the right to its plaintiff at a reasonable time in minimal expenses and minimal procedures.Judicial reconciliation is a necessity resulting from the problem facing the judiciary for long time represented in the slow litigation procedures and the accumulation of cases before the courts. However, this noble objective of judicial reconciliation has faced several obstacles which contributed to limiting its purpose. These obstacles are represented by the difference jurisprudence in its legal nature due to the legislator's failure to specify this nature, which in turn reflected on what is issued by the judiciary when proving the reconciliation that it receives. Sometimes considered Judicial reconciliation a judgment and Other times considered a contract. Whereas The judiciary other considered it a judgment in term of formality and a contract in terms of content.This difference in the legal nature of the judicial reconciliation has been reflected in the methods of appeal and led to the impossibility of implementing judicial reconciliation , as well as the contradiction of the provisions, and here lies the problem that we are trying to find a solution at both the jurisprudence and judicial levels .