He does not need to say "at his seat of judgment," because confession is valid outside the seat of judgment. If he writes that two witnesses testified to his confession, it is more confirmed. The judge writes at the top of the record: "In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful," or whatever he prefers of that nature. As for if the defendant denies and proof is testified against him, he says: "He claimed against him such and such, and he denied it. The judge asked the plaintiff: Do you have proof? He brought it, and the judge asked to hear it, and he did so. He asked him to write a record for him of what transpired, and he answered him, and that was at such and such a time." He needs here to mention: "at his seat of judgment and adjudication," unlike confession, because proof is not heard except at the seat of judgment, while confession is the opposite. The judge writes at the end of the record: "They testified before me regarding that." If the plaintiff has a document containing the handwriting of the witness, he writes beneath their handwriting or beneath the handwriting of each of them: "He testified before me regarding that." He writes his mark at the top of the record, and if he limits himself to that without the record, it is permissible. As for if the plaintiff has no proof, and he asks the denier to swear, and then the denier asks the judge for a record so that he will not have to swear to that a second time, he writes for him the same as what preceded, except that he says: "He denied, and the judge asked the plaintiff: Do you have proof? He had no proof, so he said: You have his oath. He asked him to make him swear, so he made him swear at his seat of judgment and adjudication, at such and such a time." It is necessary to mention his swearing, because the administration of an oath cannot occur except at the seat of judgment, and it is recorded at the beginning of it particularly. If the defendant refuses to swear, he says: "The oath was offered to the defendant, and he refused it. His opponent asked the judge to judge against him based on the right, so he judged against him at such and such a time." He records it at the end of it, and mentions that this was at his seat of judgment and adjudication. This is the format of the record. As for if the possessor of the right asks the judge to judge for him based on what is established in the record, it is obligatory for him to judge for him based on it and to execute it, saying: "I have judged for him based on it, I have bound him to the right, I have executed the judgment based on it." If he demands that he testify for him regarding his judgment, it is obligatory for him to do so, so that the documentation for it may be obtained. If he demands that he register it for him, which is that he writes in the record and testifies to its execution, he registers it for him. Regarding the necessity of that, there are the two views mentioned regarding the record. This is the format of the register: "In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. This is what judge so-and-so, son of so-and-so, the representative, judge for the servant of Allah, the Imam, has testified to regarding such and such at his seat of judgment and adjudication, in the place of such and such, at such and such a time, that it has been established before him..."