As a means of guaranteeing the rights of the parties to the dispute, the judicial deadline plays an important role in achieving procedural justice. In financial disputes, granting a judicial deadline by the court can create a balance between the need to expedite the proceedings and preserve the right to defense. Using a comparative analytical-descriptive method and citing reliable jurisprudential texts, including ancient and contemporary jurisprudential sources, this article examines the legitimacy and limits of granting a judicial deadline in financial disputes from the perspective of two fundamental jurisprudential rules, namely justice and expediency, in Imami and Hanafi jurisprudence. In Imami jurisprudence, the emphasis on individual justice and observance of the rights of beneficiaries is the basis for the legitimacy of granting a deadline; while in Hanafi jurisprudence, public interest and procedural order are of particular importance. This article shows that both schools of jurisprudence, although with different approaches, have accepted the legitimacy of granting a deadline in specific cases; The difference is that in Imami jurisprudence, individual justice is the dominant basis and expediency plays a complementary role, while in Hanafi jurisprudence, public interest plays a more fundamental role in decision-making, even if it limits individual justice. Finally, along with a comparative analysis of these perspectives, suggestions are presented for a balanced use of justice and expediency in the legal systems of Iran and Afghanistan.