14th Civil Chamber 2019/1725 E. , 2021/3718 K.
“Justice Text”
- Law Office
COURT: Magistrate’s Court
At the end of the hearing held by the attorney of the plaintiff, upon the petition filed against the defendants on 26/04/2013 and the request for the dissolution of the partnership; Since the appeal application was not timely, the Court of Appeals requested the examination of the additional decision dated 12/03/2019 regarding the rejection of the HUMK according to Articles 437-426/F.
DECISION
The case concerns the request for the dissolution of the partnership.
Attorney for the plaintiff, the subject of the lawsuit …. Mahallesi demanded that the partnership on the immovable property no. 152 block 197 be eliminated by the same division, if not possible, by sale.
The attorney of the defendant … argued that the lawsuit regarding the termination of the floor easement on the subject immovable is continuing, that it is expected to be finalized, that the surface area and share errors in the deed are corrected and then shared between the parties.
With the acceptance of the case, the court decided to dissolve the partnership on the immovable property numbered 152, parcel no. 197, which is the subject of the lawsuit, by means of sale.
The judgment was appealed by the defendant … attorney. Since the appeal of the defendant’s attorney was not within the time limit, an additional decision was made regarding the rejection of the appeal according to Articles of HMK 437-426/F. This additional decision was appealed by the defendant … attorney.
1- In the examination of the additional decision dated 12.03.2019;
In Article 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure numbered 6100, the cases and works to be held during the judicial recess are listed, and the cases of dissolution of the partnership are not counted among the cases to be heard during the judicial recess. In Article 104 of the HMK, if the expiry of the legal periods in cases and works that are subject to the judicial holiday coincides with the time of the judicial holiday, it is stipulated that these periods will be extended by one week from the end of the judicial holiday.
When the concrete event is examined; The decision of the defendant … attorney was notified on 26.07.2018, and the petition of appeal was given on 27.08.2018, that is, during the judicial holiday. For this reason, the appeal is in due time, and it has been decided to cancel the additional decision of the court dated 12.03.2019 regarding the rejection of the appeal request and to proceed with the examination of the objections of the defendant’s attorney.
2-As for the objections of the defendant’s attorney regarding the merits of the judgment;
According to the trial, the evidence collected and the content of the file, the court decision and the grounds on which it was based were found to be in accordance with the procedure and the law, and the verdict had to be upheld with the rejection of the appeals that were out of place.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons explained in paragraph (1) above, the court’s additional decision dated 12.03.2019 dated 12.03.2019 and numbered 2013/352 2016/163 was REVOCED, the objections of the defendant’s attorney were rejected and the judgment was APPROVED for the reasons explained in paragraph (2). It was unanimously decided on 02.06.2021 that the balance of 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 sales price of the goods be charged to the appellant.