A motion from the Law Firm to restore the time limit for filing a complaint
Attention! The Law and Law Law Company draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a specific situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in drafting any legal document that suits your situation. For more information, please contact a Lawyer/Lawyer by phone; +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (727) 971-78-58.
Semeysky City Court of the East Kazakhstan region, judge __________________
071400, Semey, _____________________ 8 ________________, _____________ ______________
@sud.kz from the Respondent: _____________________ IIN: ______________________
Proxy representative: Sarzhanov Galymzhan Turlybekovich IIN: 850722301036.
50 Zhibek Zholy ave., office 202, Medeu district, 050002, Almaty,
Business center Quarter. info@zak onpravo.kz / www.zakonpravo.kz + 7 (708) 578 57 58.
The petition
on the restoration of the time limit for filing an appeal
In your case, the wound was considered a civil case №_________________ dated __ October 20__ of the year according to the claim _____________________________ to _____________________________ and _____________________________on debt collection in this civil case by you on __ October 20__ at the premises of the Semeysky City Court of the East Kazakhstan region under your chairmanship with the participation of a representative of the plaintiff _____________________________, having considered this civil case in open court with the use of audio-video recordings, It was decided – Legal claims _____________________________ to _____________________________ and _____________________________ to satisfy the debt collection in full. Collect from _____________________________, _____________________________ in solidarity in favor of _____________________________ debt in the amount of 7,538,000 tenge.Collect from _____________________________,
_____________________________ court costs related to the refund of the state duty of 75,380 tenge and expenses for representative services in the amount of 35,000 tenge, postage in the amount of 1,161 tenge, a total of 111,541 tenge in equity in favor of _____________________________, 55,771 tenge each.Until the cancellation of the simplified court decision in September 20__ Between the defendant and the Lawyer of the Almaty City Bar Association _____________________________ An oral agreement was concluded on the provision of qualified legal assistance.. Because he was recommended by respectable reputable people and inspired confidence, after which a power of attorney was written to him for the provision of legal services and the lawyer's services were fully paid for. After which the lawyer _____________________________, He was supposed to help solve a problem in a civil case in Families, according to the claim _____________________________, in relation to the defendants, as well as the peaceful settlement of this circumstance of the case.After some time, the lawyer _____________________________, who was supposed to protect the defendants' rights disappeared, did not answer the phone, rudely ignoring all attempts by the defendant to find out about the circumstances of this civil case, sometimes sending SMS messages about the nearest solution to the case. After that, we sent a complaint to the Almaty lawyer's colleague about the lawyer's inaction. _____________________________.
After the expiration of the time, we sent a petition to the court dated __.04.20__ for familiarization with the materials of the civil case. As a result, on __ May 20, we reviewed the materials of the civil case. As a result of studying all the case materials, we came to the conclusion that we consider the decision of the court of first instance to be illegal, unjustified and subject to cancellation on the following grounds:The court violated the requirements of Article 152, paragraphs 1, of the CPC RK, where it is stipulated that the Judge returns the statement of claim if the plaintiff has not complied with the pre-trial dispute settlement procedure established by law for this category of cases or stipulated by the parties' agreement and the possibility of applying this procedure has not been lost, as well as Article 279, paragraph 1, of the CPC RK, where the Court may leave the statement of claim without consideration., if the plaintiff has not complied with the pre-trial dispute settlement procedure established by law for this category of cases or stipulated by the contract and the possibility of applying this procedure has not been lost, and the Plaintiff has not filed a pre-trial claim in this civil case, which is a violation by the plaintiff of the requirements of paragraphs 6, art.8, CPC RK.The plaintiff's application does not comply with the requirements of clauses 6, 2, and 148 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, where it is established that the application is submitted to the court of first instance in writing or in the form of an electronic document.
The application must contain information on compliance with the pre–trial procedure for contacting the defendant, if this is established by law or provided for by a contract. However, this paragraph of the Code was not complied with, also in art. 149, CPC RK, it is established that the following documents are attached to the statement of claim: documents confirming the circumstances on which the plaintiff bases his claims; documents confirming compliance with the pre-trial dispute settlement procedure, if this procedure is established by law or provided for by a contract.However, the judge, without clarifying all the above-mentioned mandatory provisions of the Law, grossly violated the requirements of paragraphs 1 and 3 of art. 152 of the CPC RK. In this case, according to art. 152 paragraphs 1 and 3 of the CPC RK, as well as art.279 paragraph 1 of the CPC RK, the court was obliged to return the statement of claim and leave it without consideration.
The court violated the requirements of Article 71 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan, where the Legislator explained that evidence is provided by a judge when preparing a case for trial or when considering a case in a court of first instance no later than three working days from the date of receipt of the application and in Article 163 of paragraph 2 of subparagraphs 1 and 4 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan After the application is accepted into court proceedings and the initiation of In a civil case, the judge prepares the case for trial in order to ensure its timely and correct resolution. The tasks of preparing a civil case for trial, which are mandatory for each case, are: clarifying the circumstances relevant to the proper resolution of the case; determining the evidence that each party must provide in support of its claims or objections.; In addition, the Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated __ December 20__, No. __, On the preparation of civil cases for trial, states that a judge must, even when accepting an application for court proceedings, strictly comply with the requirements of Articles 148 and 149 of the CPC on substantiation of statements submitted to the court with evidence – which, unfortunately, the court does not it was respected.Thus, the receipt attached
the plaintiff's statement of claim is not proof that the defendants owe the plaintiff. The plaintiff's claims for a debt receipt in the amount of 8,312,000 tenge are not valid because the defendants did not receive this money at the time of writing the receipt and in such an amount. If you read the Receipt in detail, it says: "I, _____________________________, ID card №_____________________________ from __.06.__ of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan, residing in Semey, ___________________, And my husband, _____________________________, ID card №_____________________________ from __.09.__ Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan, residing at Families, _____________________________, We undertake to repay the 8,312,000 (eight million three hundred and twelve thousand) tenge we borrowed (the receipts were written earlier) as soon as the funds arrive until __ August 20__. In case of sale of our production facilities, refund the entire amount. The receipt was written in his own hand, in the presence of _____________________________."., but there are other previously written receipts, which indicate other amounts that the court did not pay attention to.All payments allegedly made by the defendants to the accounts _____________________________., They do not confirm the recognition of the debt by the defendants in the amount of 8,312,000 tenge, since there are no documents in the civil case.or payment statements for the transferred amounts.All payments in favor of the Plaintiff were made according to receipts written earlier on __.06.20__ of the year. Most of the debt was repaid by the Defendants to _____________________________., in cash in her office in the Currency Transit Bank building. The defendants recorded each payment on the reverse sides of the receipts with a corresponding entry and signatures, which the plaintiff intentionally omits and misleads the court.The receipt dated __.06.20._, attached to the statement of claim, does not say that the defendants received the money. In this receipt, there is only a reference to a previously written receipt. However, these receipts are missing from the case file, which is a violation of the requirements of art.149 para.4 of the CPC RK, art.148.p5 of the CPC RK, art.72 para.1 of the CPC RK and art.73 para.1 of the CPC RK, and not the attentiveness of the judge.Thus, since the plaintiff did not provide all the documents confirming the circumstances on which the plaintiff bases the claims, the receipt dated __.06.20__, attached to the statement of claim, DOES NOT CONFIRM the fact that the defendants received funds in the amount of 8,312,000 tenge. Consequently, the court, without properly examining all the evidence, without taking into account the previously repaid payments of the defendants, without requesting all supporting documents from the plaintiff, violated the requirement of art.71 p.1 of the CPC RK and art.163 p.2 of paragraphs 1 and 4 of the CPC RK.
Attention!
Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.
For more information, please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085.
Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office Court Cases
