Comments on article 375. The right of the document holder to file a claim for the unjustified acquisition of property of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan

The holder of a document who, for some reason, has not declared his rights to this document in a timely manner, after the entry into force of a court decision declaring the document invalid, may file a claim for unjustified acquisition or saving of property against the person who has the right to receive a new document to replace the lost one.The CPC does not provide that a pass by a document holder who has not declared his rights in a timely manner for any reason within a three-month period from the date of publication in the media, this is the basis for the refusal to satisfy his application. If the application of the holder of the lost document is submitted to the court after the expiration of a three-month period, but before the case is considered on its merits, it is subject to consideration by the court and entails the consequences provided for in Article 372 of the CPC. If such an application is received by the court after the expiration of a three-month period and after consideration of the case on its merits, it is subject to return without consideration with an explanation of filing a claim for the unjustified acquisition or saving of property to the person who has the right to receive a new document to replace the lost one.This three-month period cannot be restored by a court in accordance with Article 126 of the CPC, since Article 375 of the CPC explicitly provides, what are the consequences of the document holder missing the three-month deadline for submitting an application to the court?If, as a result of the consideration of the case, the claim of the document holder against the person who is recognized as having the right to receive a new document to replace the lost one on the unjustified acquisition or saving of property is satisfied, then the court decision rendered in accordance with Article 374 of the CPC cannot be reviewed by the court due to newly discovered or new circumstances., since, according to the norms of parts two and three of Article 550 of the CPC, this circumstance is not a basis for reviewing judicial acts that have entered into force due to newly discovered or new circumstances. Also, the CPC does not provide for another procedure for revoking such a court decision (by the same court or by cassation).

LIBRARY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN

Astana, 2016

UDC 347 (574)  

By 63

ISBN 978-601-236-042-4

 Constitution Law Code Standard Decree Order Decision Resolution Lawyer Almaty Lawyer Legal service Legal advice Civil Criminal Administrative cases Disputes Defense Arbitration Law Company Kazakhstan Law Firm Court Cases