Judicial jurisdiction constitutes one of the fundamental institutions of civil procedure and plays a decisive role in ensuring fair trial and preventing unnecessary delays in adjudication. The establishment of Peace Courts as a recent legislative innovation in Iran’s judicial system, although intended to facilitate access to justice, reduce the caseload of general civil courts, and expedite proceedings, has given rise in practice to ambiguities and conflicts of jurisdiction. Overlaps in subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction, lack of clarity in certain statutory provisions, divergent interpretations of legal texts, and inconsistent judicial practices have contributed to jurisdictional conflicts between General Civil Courts and Peace Courts. Adopting a descriptive–analytical approach and based on library research, statutory analysis, decisions of the Supreme Court’s General Assembly (unification rulings), and advisory opinions of the Legal Department of the Judiciary, this study examines the foundations of jurisdiction of these two judicial bodies and analyzes practical instances of jurisdictional conflict. Subsequently, the legislative and procedural challenges are identified and solutions are proposed, including legislative reform, expansion of judicial unification of practice, and the issuance of clear executive guidelines. The findings indicate that the absence of precise jurisdictional criteria regarding Peace Courts constitutes the primary source of conflict, and that legislative clarification can significantly contribute to resolving these challenges.