Correction of defective procedural work in attendance - a comparative study in the Egyptian and Palestinian pleadings law.

The judiciary seeks to achieve its objectives effectively through the existence of procedures and main pillars on which it is based, which in turn work to achieve the objectives of judicial work, and these procedures are the essence of the work of courts of all kinds, whether civil or criminal, because they are one of the foundations on which the courts rely when considering any lawsuit, but the lawsuit begins with a judicial procedure and continues to be considered by other procedures,  until a verdict is rendered.  The procedure may be accompanied by a deficiency or defect that violates the procedural legal rules set by the legislator, which leads to prejudice to the interest of the litigants or leads to the deviation of the course of the litigation from its purpose. The legislator arranged invalidity for violating the form set by law, resulting in the disappearance of all subsequent procedures based on the defective procedure. The presence of litigants is one of the guarantees set by the legislator to achieve the principle of confrontation. To enable each adversary to know what the other opponent claims and the arguments and evidence on which he bases his allegations, so that each adversary can respond to these allegations. The legislator arranged that the litigant was not declared in the manner he drew - which is represented in judicial notifications - the invalidity of the notification and consequently the non-convening of the litigation, or its postponement until the defendant is properly notified again.