According to the second part of Article 23 of the Civil Procedure Law, lawsuits related to the branch of the company are filed in the court of the branch. The ruling of this part in the sense that it is related to contractual claims related to the branch or non-contractual claims or both categories, and that regarding contractual claims related to the branch, it negates the jurisdiction of the place where the contract took place and the place or places of execution of the contract, or no, it is a place for discussion and contemplation. The position of this part in Article 23 and following the first part of that article which is related to the contractual claims of the company and also the use of the words "obligations" and "transaction" in it, leads the mind to the contractual claims related to the branch and the word "Should" also appear in the exclusive jurisdiction of the court of the branch and negate the jurisdiction of the court of the place of contract and the place or places of execution of the contract. This is despite the fact that the context of the phrase indicates that it is auxiliary, facilitating and developmental, but the mentioned items indicate a restrictive, irrational and unacceptable meaning. The legislator in Article 25 of Civil Procedure Law also, in an incomplete statement, he repeated the wording of the note of Article 4 of the Civil Registration Law and refused to quote the text of the mentioned article. This situation has caused ambiguities and opposing opinions. Investigations show that the action of the legislator in the provision of Article 25 of Civil Procedure Law It is only for the purpose of aggregating the provisions related to jurisdiction and not negating The rule of the text of Article 4 of the Civil Registration Law, but the legislator has been careless in transferring the rule of Article 4 of the Civil Registration Law to article 25 of Civil Procedure Law.