T.C.
ISTANBUL REGIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
22. law office
E. 2017/1042
K. 2017/1201
T. 5.7.2017
* THE APPLICANT’S REASONS AND GROUNDS FOR FILING AN APPEAL MUST BE SHOWN IN HIS PETITION (The Defendant Does Not Fulfill His Obligation to Show Concrete Reasons and Grounds Arising from the Provision of HMK 342/2 /e – HMK 352, Since the Petition Does Not Have the Conditions of Visibility.In Accordance with the Article, the Application will be Rejected )
* DESPITE THE NOTIFICATION OF THE DECISION, A PETITION IS NOT SUBMITTED INDICATING THE REASONS FOR FILING AN APPEAL (HMK 352, Since the Petition Does not Have Visibility Conditions.In Accordance with the Article, the Application must be Rejected)
6100/m.342,352,355
ABSTRACT: The applicant applying for an appeal must show his reasons and justifications in his petition. In the concrete case, it is understood that the applicant plaintiff did not submit a petition indicating the reasons for the appeal application despite the notification of the reasoned decision. The defendant has not fulfilled his obligation to show concrete reasons and justifications arising from the provision of HMK 342/2/E. HMK 352, as the petition does not have visibility conditions.it must be rejected in accordance with the article.
CASE : The file together with the application for appeal filed by the defendant’s deputy has been sent to our apartment by the local court, but it is in accordance with Article 352 of the Civil Procedure Code.examined in accordance with the article; considered necessary:
DECISION: The deputy plaintiff stated in the petition for the lawsuit that the Istanbul 35 Enforcement Directorate’s 2015/19443 case file was followed up on his client, that the check was issued on behalf of his client by playing on the discovery date and throwing money on the market, that the signature on the check was not a product of his client’s hand, and that the objection to the signature, cancellation of the follow-up, the defendant was sentenced to pay compensation for unfair and malicious follow-up he wanted a decision to be made.
The defendant in the defendant’s answer to the petition, the deputy that the legitimate holder of good faith, bad faith or costs cannot be awarded damages for the case of denial, the appeal malicious due to 20% of compensation to be given not less than that, and litigation costs and attorney fees to be on the side of the plaintiff is asked to decide.
The court decided that the case “does not belong to the plaintiff with the signature of Paraf, accordingly, the date of discovery is 26/02/2014 and was not submitted within the check period, so the plaintiff’s case was ACCEPTED and the FOLLOW-UP was CANCELED”.
HMK 342.in accordance with paragraph e of the article, the applicant who applies for an appeal must show his reasons and grounds in his petition.In the concrete case, it is understood that the applicant plaintiff did not submit a petition indicating the reasons for the appeal application despite the notification of the reasoned decision.The defendant has not fulfilled his obligation to show concrete reasons and justifications arising from the provision of HMK 342/2/E. HMK 352, as the petition does not have visibility conditions.it must be rejected in accordance with the article.
As it happens, HMK 355.since there is no reason contrary to public order in the examination conducted within the framework of the article, HMK 352 of the defendant’s request for appeal.in accordance with the article, it was decided to reject it from the procedure and the provision was established as follows.
CONCLUSION : The rationale is as described above,
1-)HMK 355.since there is no reason contrary to public order in the examination conducted within the framework of the article, the defendant’s petition for appeal was rejected in accordance with articles HMK 352-342/e
2-)a-Since the application fees are received in advance, there is no place for the re-receipt of fees,
b-) Leaving the costs of appeal proceedings on the defendant
As a result of the examination conducted on the file in the absence of the parties involved, a unanimous decision was made to be final in accordance with paragraph 364/1 of the IIK. 05.07.2017
You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.