The principles governing the law on the execution of civil judgments, such as the principle of the urgency of the execution of the judgment and the principle of the continuity of the executive operation and the non-delay or closure of it, require that after the completion of the judicial process, the content of the issued judgment should be implemented without delay. Because the purpose and goal of the proceedings is to issue a just verdict and execute it, and without the execution of the verdict, this goal will not be achieved. The aforementioned principles have been allocated by the approval of the single article of the law on the manner of payment of fines to the government and non-provision and confiscation of government property approved in 1365. Allocation of immediate execution of judgments on one hand and non-compensation for delayed payment after delayed execution of judgments on the other hand has shaken the position of the legislator in public opinion and the sense of justice in the society And it raises this question: Is the legislator's performance in delaying the execution of the government's financial penalties and not confiscating government property correct؟ The following article adopts the descriptive-analytical method, in order to present a report on the efficiency of the legislature and the existing procedure in the courts (regarding the late execution of judgments and non-payment of damages), the scope of this single article and the justification and critical reasons for It has been investigated. The results indicate that although the impossibility of confiscating the property of government institutions can be justified based on some principles; However, the performance of the legislature and the courts regarding the institutions covered by this single article and the non-payment of late payment damages is in some respects a problem and deserves to be