Interim injunction is one of the most important provisional measures in Iranian civil procedure, issued to prevent harm and preserve the status quo until the substantive dispute is resolved. Its execution may sometimes infringe upon the rights of third parties who did not participate in the proceedings; accordingly, the admissibility of a third party's objection against an interim injunction has become a major challenge in Iranian civil procedure. The main issue addressed here is the relationship between Article 325 of the Civil Procedure Code, which restricts the avenues of challenge against interim injunctions, and Article 417 of the same Code, which recognizes a third party's right to object to judgments that impair his or her rights.

Using a descriptive-analytical method and relying on legal provisions, doctrine, judicial decisions, advisory opinions, and judicial conferences, this study examines that apparent conflict. The findings show that although prevailing judicial practice treats such objections as inadmissible, relying on the provisional nature of interim injunctions, a systematic reading of the relevant provisions, the principle of the relativity of judgments, the right to access to justice under Article 34 of the Constitution, the no-harm (lā-ḍarar) principle, and fair-trial requirements support admissibility where the third party's rights are directly affected. The article recommends legislative amendment or a unified judicial precedent to resolve the existing inconsistency.