Saveliev A.N. sent by mail to the district court a statement about the claim from V. Kumykin property or collection of its value. In this statement, Savelyev also requested the seizure of property in order to secure the claim, to call witnesses who can confirm the fact of his disputed property and to appoint an examination to evaluate things previously assessed by the plaintiff for a total of 150 minimum wages.
Arriving in court a few days later, Savelyev learned that the judge had issued a determination of the following content. “To refuse the application for securing the claim; determine the price of the claim at 200 thousand rubles, oblige the plaintiff to make an additional state duty within three days; from among the witnesses indicated by the plaintiff, Rodionov’s call is considered unnecessary; there is no need to appoint an examination, if the plaintiff wants to give him a demand to receive a certificate from the thrift store about the value of the property being sought. ”
How correct are the judges? Which of these actions may be appealed? Can Saveliev reiterate his petition to call witness Rodionov and to appoint an examination when considering the case in court?
After payment you will be available a link to the solution of this problem in the file of MS Word. It should be noted that the problem solutions put up for sale were successfully handed over in the period 2004-2019 and could be outdated. However, the general algorithm will always remain true.
No feedback yet