prescription is a law principle which oversees the verdicts, trials and pronouncements and according to the significant effects it has in people's commercial and law relationship, it enjoys a particular judicial position based upon this principle's tenets, if the person doesn't ask for the lawsuit during the determinate time in order to regain his rights, his rights will be evanesced or at least it may cause his lawsuit not to be listened and consequently this will result in negation of the person's ownership domination over his right. On the counter point, according to Shiite religious jurists, the right for taking vengeance will not be integrated and whenever the qualifications exist and there is no contradiction, it will be applicable. Since taking vengeance is considered as a right of creditor over debtor, presuming that we accept "prescription" there will be an evident conflict between the prescription principle and the right for taking vengeance.
Religious jurists by referring to this principle that " Ø§ÙØÙÙ ÙØ¯ÛÙ
Ø ÙØ§ ÛØ¨Ø·ÙÙ Ø§ÙØ´Ø¦" do not include the exertion of the right for vengeance within the 'prescription principle', so they consider it preferential to the 'prescription principle'. It seems that by affirming symptoms evidence, the right for vengeance will be negated and will not be applicable.