As a general rule, the owner of the right can revoke his right, and in many judicial decisions, the convicted criminal has the right to appeal. The purpose of this research is to examine the conditions, methods and effects of revoking the right to appeal from judicial verdicts in Iranian and French law.  In this article, the research has been done by studying the codified laws, advisory opinions and judicial verdicts and using the descriptive-analytical method.  For the right to appeal to be valid, the person who waives must have a position, legal authority, intention and consent and, like all legal acts, have the right to appeal.  In France, they accept the cancellation of the right to appeal only from persons who have the capacity to compromise.  In the law, there are two exceptions to the revocation of the right to appeal, one of which is the jurisdiction of the court, both inherent and local jurisdiction, and the other is the jurisdiction of the judge, which of course would be better, except in the case of immovable property, it was not considered as an exception.  The revocation law considers the right of appeal possible with the consent of the parties, however, despite the differences in opinions, in the author's opinion, one-sided revocation should also be considered valid.  Also, with the interpretation of the opinion of the legislator and in order to prevent the delay of the settlement proceedings, the consent must be written.  Revocation before issuing a decision and revocation after a dispute is also valid due to the existence of the reason for the right of revocation.  But revocation is invalid before there is a dispute in the laws of Iran and France.  The effect of revoking the right to appeal is that the request is not heard after revoking the right. However, the cancellation of the right to protest against the arbitrator’s award cannot be considered valid.