The Case For The Elimination Of The Partnership Is Not Among The Cases That Can Be Held On Judicial Holiday
14th Civil Chamber 2019/1725 E. , 2021/3718 K.
“Case Law Text”
14th Civil Chamber
COURT :Magistrate Law Court
At the end of the hearing held upon the request for the elimination of the partnership with the petition filed by the plaintiff’s attorney against the defendants on 26/04/2013; the Supreme Court of Appeal examination of the additional decision dated 12/03/2019, which was rejected in accordance with Articles 437-426/F of the Code of Civil Procedure, was requested by the defendant …’s attorney, and after the acceptance of the petition of appeal, which was understood to be in due time, the file and all the papers in it were examined and considered accordingly:
DECISION
The lawsuit is related to the request for dissolution of partnership.
The plaintiff’s attorney requested that the partnership on the …. Neighbourhood 152 block 197 parcel numbered immovable subject to the lawsuit, and if it is not possible, by sale.
The defendant … defended that the lawsuit regarding the termination of the condominium easement on the immovable property subject to the lawsuit is ongoing, the finalisation of the lawsuit should be awaited, and that the errors in the area and shares in the title deed should be corrected and then divided between the parties.
Court accepted the lawsuit and decided to eliminate the partnership on the immovable property numbered 152 block 197 parcel by sale.
The judgement was appealed by the defendant …’s attorney. Since the appeal application of the defendant … was not in due time, an additional decision was made to reject the appeal request according to Articles 437-426/F of the CCP. This additional decision was appealed by the counsel for the defendant ….
1- In the examination of the additional decision dated 12.03.2019;
In Article 103 of the CCP No. 6100, the cases and works to be heard during the judicial holiday are listed and the cases for the elimination of the partnership are not listed among the cases to be heard during the judicial holiday. In Article 104 of the CCP, it is ruled that if the expiry of the legal periods in cases and works subject to judicial holiday coincides with the judicial holiday, these periods will be extended by one week from the date of the end of the judicial holiday.
When the concrete case is examined; the decision was notified to the defendant … attorney on 26.07.2018, and the petition for appeal was filed on 27.08.2018, ie during the judicial holiday. For this reason, the appeal request is in due time and it is necessary to decide to lift the additional decision dated 12.03.2019 regarding the rejection of the court’s appeal request and to proceed to the examination of the appeal objections of the defendant … attorney.
2- As for the appeal objections of the defendant …’s attorney regarding the merits of the judgement;
According to the trial, the collected evidence and the contents of the file, since the court decision and the grounds on which it is based are in accordance with the procedure and the law, it is necessary to approve the judgement by rejecting the appeal objections that are not appropriate.
CONCLUSION:
For the reasons explained in subparagraph (1) above, the court’s judgement dated 12.03. 2019 dated 12.03.2019 and numbered 2013/352 Esas 2016/163 Karar, for the reasons explained in subparagraph (2) above, the appeal objections of the defendant …’s attorney were rejected and the judgement was upheld, and it was unanimously decided on 02.06.2021 to deduct 44,40 TL taken in advance from the approval fee to be calculated at the rate of 011,38% of the money to be deducted from the sale price of the immovable property and to charge the balance to the appellant.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.