251 CIVIL PROCEDURE LAW In this case, it is understood that the plaintiff made a payment to the insured by calculating the price of tangerines from TRY 1. Within this scope, the General Assembly of Civil Chambers concluded that facts claimed by the plaintiff’s attorney (that the defendant was at fault and that the price of the tangerine should be accepted as TRY 1) were denied by the defendant by not submitting a reply petition. Furthermore, The General Assembly of Civil Chambers stipulates that the court of first instance decided by ignoring the defendant denied the fact that the price of tangerines was TRY 1 by not submitting a reply petition and only by obtaining an expert report in terms of degree of negligence. Moreover, in the Decision, it is stated that considering the defendant shall also be deemed to have denied the price of the tangerine, an examination and research should have been carried out by evaluating the evidence in the file in this respect. However, the General Assembly of Civil Chambers also determined that the defendant attorney’s petition against the expert report that stated only that tangerines were defective (without objecting to the defect rate), and that an expert report should be prepared by taking this matter into account, was in the nature of expanding the defense. In this respect, the Decision emphasizes that it was not possible to consider this defense of the defendant within the scope of the prohibition of expanding and amending the claim and defense. Consequently, with the acceptance of the defendant attorney’s objections to appeal, the General Assembly of Civil Chambers decided that the decision to resist should be reversed in accordance with Art. 429 Code of Civil Procedure No. 1086 in force with reference to Provisional Art. 3 of the CCP. Conclusion This decision is remarkable in that it examines the legal consequences of not submitting a reply petition within time limit and the scope of the prohibition of expanding or amending the claim and defense. The General Assembly of Civil Chambers has concluded that the plaintiff denied the price of the commodity subject to the dispute by not submitting a reply petition (in the face of the claimant’s claim
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjUzNjE=