"Enforceable instruments"—documents that carry immediate legal force—serve as a primary mechanism for ensuring the fulfillment of obligations. They can be enforced through the Registration Execution Departments, bypassing the need for formal litigation in court. However, the enforcement process may give rise to various issues and disputes that hinder its progress. This research aims to analyze the nature and scope of such issues and disputes, while identifying the competent authorities and the procedures for addressing them within the Iranian legal system. The central question concerns the types of disputes that may arise during the enforcement of these instruments, and how the respective jurisdictions of registration authorities and the courts are delineated. Employing a descriptive-analytical methodology, this study examines relevant statutes, the *Regulation on the Execution of the Provisions of Enforceable Official Documents*, judicial precedents (*ra'y-e vahdat-e ravieh*), and legal doctrine. The findings indicate that issues arising in relation to enforceable instruments fall into two categories: procedural (pertaining to the execution process) and substantive (pertaining to the underlying obligation or the validity of the document itself). Procedural objections fall under the jurisdiction of the Head of the Registration Office and the Supervisory Board, whereas substantive disputes fall within the purview of the General Civil Courts. A precise understanding of this distinction is crucial for preventing undue delays in the enforcement process and safeguarding the rights of both the obligor and the obligee.