Primary Intervention Petition
PRIMARY INTERVENTION IN CIVIL PROCEDURE
While a lawsuit between two persons is pending, a third person may file a new lawsuit in the same court with the claim that he/she has a right on the subject matter of the lawsuit, with the defendants being the plaintiff and defendant of the pending lawsuit. Although primary intervention is a type of lawsuit that has been applied from the past to the present and has been expressed in Article 713 of the TMK and Article 26 of the Cadastral Law, it was regulated for the first time in the procedural provisions of the CCP. Pursuant to Article 65 of the CCP; “A third party who claims partially or wholly on the right or thing that is the subject of a proceeding may file a lawsuit against the parties of the proceeding in the same court by asserting this situation until the judgment is rendered”. As it is understood from the provision, the primary intervention is filed as a separate lawsuit in the court where the first lawsuit was filed. In this way, the cases can be consolidated and both proceedings can be conducted together.
In the original intervention case, the plaintiff is the person who claims a partial or full claim on the subject matter of the first lawsuit pending; the defendant is the plaintiff and defendant of the first lawsuit, and there is a formal compulsory litigation friendship between them. As can be seen, there are two parties to the lawsuit in primary intervention. For this reason, the primary intervention essentially constitutes a bilateral litigation relationship rather than a tripartite relationship.
The purpose of primary intervention is to reveal the truth by improving the situation that the third party, who claims to have a right on the subject matter of a pending lawsuit, cannot establish a judgment on its behalf in the proceedings that cannot be provided by fer ‘i intervention, to prevent conflicting decisions by conducting the cases together and to contribute to procedural economy. In addition, the CPC 65/2 stipulates that “ The primary intervention case and the main proceedings shall be conducted and concluded together.” This restricts the discretionary power of the judge to consolidate the cases. In this context, the judge may make the first lawsuit a matter of waiting for the primary intervention lawsuit.
Principal intervention is possible not only in contentious proceedings but also in non-contentious proceedings. Although it is not possible to characterize non-contentious judicial proceedings as a lawsuit, primary intervention will be possible when a third party makes a claim against a matter that has been subject to non-contentious jurisdiction, and the matter will cease to be subject to non-contentious jurisdiction and become a contentious judicial dispute.
EXAMPLE OF PRIMARY INTERVENER PETITION
TO THE JUDGE OF THE … COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE;
FILE NO : …/… E.
PRIMARY INTERVENTION
REQUESTOR :
TC ID NUMBER :
ADDRESS :
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE :
(legal representatives of the parties, if any)
ADDRESS :
(of the legal representatives of the parties, if any)
DEFENDANT :
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE :
(legal representatives of the parties, if any)
ADDRESS :
(of the legal representatives of the parties, if any)
DEFENDANT :
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE :
(legal representatives of the parties, if any)
ADDRESS :
(of the legal representatives of the parties, if any)
VALUE OF THE CASE :
(in cases related to the subject matter of the lawsuit and property rights)
SUBJECT : Our petition containing our request for primary intervention.
EXPLANATIONS :
1-) The plaintiff of the lawsuit pending before your court … /…/…/…dated …/…/… registered in …/…/… case file of your Court, the plaintiff Treasury has claimed that the immovable property of the nature of …, which is the subject of the dispute and located in … province, … district, … neighborhood/village, … plot, … island, … parcel, is not registered in the title deed, and that the defendant has seized the immovable, and has requested the prevention of seizure, cancellation and registration of the title deed.
2-) The defendant, stating that he owns the immovable property subject to the lawsuit due to external purchase and transfer, requested the dismissal of the lawsuit.
3-) Our client inherited the immovable property subject to the lawsuit from his father. The certificate of inheritance is attached to our petition (Annex 1) for your court’s examination. As can be understood from the certificate of inheritance, the testator … left behind only his children, our client and his brother …. Our client’s mother passed away at a much earlier date (Annex 2).
4-) Our client purchased his brother’s share from his brother with an external sales contract (Annex 3) dated …/…/…/…and has been in sole possession of the immovable property. Contrary to the claims of the plaintiff and the defendant, the immovable property subject to the lawsuit has been used by my client for more than twenty years with the intention of ownership and has been regularly cultivated and harvested by him for all this time. This matter will be clarified by the explanations of our local witnesses, whose names and addresses are included in the witness list attached to our petition (Annex 4), to your court during the trial phase. The letter certifying that our client has been an agricultural Bağ-Kur insured for more than twenty years (Annex 5), the agricultural chamber and agricultural credit cooperative records (Annex 6), all of which are issued in the name of our client and which we think support the witness statements, are among the evidence we will rely on in proving our claim.
5-) Moreover, the immovable property subject to the lawsuit is not located within the forest boundaries, nor is it an immovable property that has been taken out of the forest boundaries and registered in the name of the Treasury. Therefore, neither the plaintiff Treasury nor the defendant has any preferable right over the subject immovable. We are of the opinion that the immovable property subject to the lawsuit should be registered in the name of my client who has already fulfilled the conditions of possession with extraordinary prescription.
6-) For the reasons mentioned above, it has become necessary to intervene in the aforementioned case in order to ensure that the immovable property subject to the lawsuit is registered in the name of the client.
LEGAL GROUNDS : Art. 683, 713 of the Law No. 4721, Art. 4 of the Law No. 3402, Art. 2 of the Law No. 6831
Art. 2, 6100 S. Code Art. 65.
LEGAL EVIDENCES : Certificate of inheritance, Family population record sample, External sales contract, Witness Statements, Administrative letter stating that the agricultural Bağ-Kur insured, Chamber of Agriculture record, Agricultural credit cooperative record, Discovery and Expert examination, Oath.
CONCLUSION AND REQUEST : For the reasons explained above, we respectfully request on behalf of our client that our request for primary intervention be accepted and that the immovable property be registered to the title deed in the name of our client based on the legal reason of extraordinary gainful possession, and that the judicial expenses and attorney fees be imposed on the defendants. …/…/…
ANNEXES : 1- … Civil Court of Peace …/…/… T. …/…. E. …/…. Certificate of inheritance numbered K.
2- Family Population Registration Sample
3- …/…/…/…external share transfer agreement,
4- Names and addresses of the witnesses and the subjects they will testify about
a list of witnesses,
5- Indicates that you are insured for Agriculture Bağ-Kur
…/…/…/… dated, administrative letter numbered …,
6- … Chamber of Agriculture records, … Agricultural Credit Cooperative records,
7- One approved power of attorney sample.
Attorney for the Principal Intervener/Plaintiff
……………………………