Although scholars and Imami jurists regard the principle as requiring that claims be heard, the application of this principle, alongside observance of the formalistic nature of civil procedure, faces certain challenges. In addition to examining these challenges and setting out six approaches to the possibility of curing the claim and the limits of applying this principle, the present study addresses the role of the legislator, the judge, and the parties’ agreement in making claims capable of being heard. According to the findings of the research, the plaintiff may cure the claim through six avenues: curing the evidence and documents of the claim; adding to the parties to the claim by way of joinder of third parties through third-party notice or third-party intervention; correcting the wording of the relief sought; correcting the subject-matter; correcting the cause of action; and bringing a separate claim. The application of the principle of hearing the claim is not synonymous with curing the proceedings, and it is applicable even in situations in which a claim has not yet come into existence. Legislation drafted with this principle in mind must aim at preventing the proliferation of adjudicating fora and at eliminating formalities; moreover, respect for the parties’ latest intention regarding the implied rescission of the arbitration clause and the hearing of the claim before the court is also necessary.