Reply Petition Against The Reclamation
TO THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
File No: 2015/….Easas
DECLARANT
DEFENDANTS (COUNTERCLAIMANTS) :
ATTORNEYS:
PLAINTIFFS (COUNTERCLAIMANTS) : ……… A.Ş
ATTORNEYS:
SUBJECT : …/…/…. is the petition containing our statements against the amendment petition dated …/…/…..
DECLARATIONS
1. We do not accept the amendment petition stating that the plaintiff has increased the subject matter of the lawsuit according to the expert report prepared without evaluating the statements of the defendant witnesses and the evidence submitted to the file by us.
2. In the fault expert reports available in the file, exorbitant fault ratios at the rate of … have been attributed to us unfairly and without sufficient examination. The deficiencies in the said report are stated in the petition containing our objection to the detailed expert report we submitted to the file. It is not possible for us to accept the court’s decision in line with the erroneous expert report submitted to the file without taking our objections into consideration.
3. Despite all these findings we have put forward, it is clearly against equity and law to attribute …proportion of fault to us. Based on these defect rates attributed to our client, it is unacceptable for the plaintiff to increase the amount of the lawsuit with the amendment petition in question, as if all the fault is attributed to our client.
4. We do not accept the amendment petition submitted by the other party without evaluating all the objections made by us against the expert reports and the information and documents we submitted to the file including the deficiencies in the expert report, that is, without eliminating the legal contradictions that need to be made in terms of fault, which is seen as the essence of the file.
5. On the other hand, the expert reports submitted to the file on the subject are in complete contradiction with each other. While our client was attributed secondary fault in the first expert report, it is a clear and serious contradiction that this fault rate was changed in the next report to be almost primarily at fault. While there is a clear contradiction between the reports submitted to the file by two different committees, it is not possible to accept the amendment of the file without resolving this contradiction. Considering the nature of the case, the first action to be taken by the court is to eliminate the contradiction between the reports while a definitive determination of fault has not yet been made. Consequently, the decision to be made by your Honorable Court based on the expert examinations prepared incorrectly in this state of the file will be contrary to equity and law.
6. We do not accept the amendment petition submitted by the other party to the file based on the unfair and unlawful and contradictory reports.
CONCLUSION AND REQUEST : For the reasons we have presented and explained above;
1. First of all, we declare that we do not accept the amendment petition submitted by the other party, requesting that the rate of fault be redetermined by eliminating the contradictions in terms of fault and taking into account our objections made in this regard.
2. For this reason, we respectfully and jointly request and demand that the file be re-delegated to a specialized expert committee that can prepare a report in terms of both fault and calculation.
Attorneys for the Defendant (Counterclaimant)
………………………….