1_ Translate the following legal text into colloquial Farsi 2_ Place the Persian and English text side by side in the table 3_ From the beginning to the end of the text, there should be an English sentence on the left side and a Persian sentence on the right side.
       4- Using legal language for Persian translation

          .Judges of the superior courts may, on appeal, overrule a decision, reverse a decision, or disapprove of a previous decision. Sometimes alterations can only be made by a statute which revokes previous law and reshapes the law to meet the changing conditions of people and society.
Overruling occurs where a higher court (e.g. the House of Lords) decides a similar case on the basis of a different legal principle. The previous rule laid down (e.g. by the Court of Appeal) is then said to be overruled.
Reversal occurs where an appeal court reverses a decision given in a lower court from which the appeal emanated. Thus in the case of A v. B a High Court may give judgment for A, while on appeal the higher court gives judg- ment for B.
Disapproval occurs where a superior court in the course of its judgment expresses doubt as to the validity of some previous rule but does not expressly overule it.
The doctrine of stare decisis ('to stand by past decisions') is the technical name given to the rule that judges must follow the precedents and principles of law declared by superior courts.
Ratio decidendi is a technical phrase meaning the principle or reason for the decision. This portion of a judgment of a court is binding in similar cases which may subsequently be tried by lower courts. It is a vital part of a judg- ment and must be distinguished from obiter dicta ('things said by the way') meaning those words delivered by a judge which are not essential to his deci- sion. Thus, a judge in the course of a judgment might discuss a hypothetical situation: 'If, however, A had done this and B had done that... I should have been obliged to find that A and B would be jointly responsible...' These words are said obiter, by the way, and are not binding. They might, however, be persuasive'; if the situation envisaged by the judge arose in fact at some later time these words could have an influence on the judge trying that case. Judges of the High Court, county court judges, and magistrates are absolutely bound by the decisions of the House of Lords and Court of Appeal where those decisions are clearly in point. Such precedents which a judge must follow are called Binding Precedents. All other precedents are called Persuasive Precedents: these include decisions or principles laid down by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, decisions of Commonwealth courts or of the United States Supreme Court. A judge of one division of the High Court is not bound by the decision of another High Court judge, though each attention to the other's decisions to ensure certainty and uniformity of law. Frequently there will be no relevant decided case for a judge to turn to. Notwithstanding the many volumes of law reports and the thousands of cases reported, representing a 'wealth of detailed rules', there may be no cer- tainty of the rule to be applied. The judge must declare what the rule should be by arguing from analogous cases. Since the common law is 'complete' and capable of providing a remedy for every wrong, where there is no apparent rule the judge is expected to act creatively in declaring from his or her study of the common law or equity or jurisprudence what that rule should be.
心
Obviously no two cases coming before the courts of law are identical. This fact enables a judge to point to some material difference which is justifica- tion for refusing to apply a rule of law previously laid down. The judge is distinguishing the present case from the earlier one, so avoiding hardship or injustice which was not envisaged when the earlier judgment was announced.