Tinjauan Terhadap Putusan Niet Ontvankelijke Verklaard (N.O) Dalam Perkara Perdata Di Pengadilan Negeri Pekanbaru (Studi Kasus Putusan No.22/Pdt.G/2015/PN.Pbr)

Masyita, Rafa Puji (2019) Tinjauan Terhadap Putusan Niet Ontvankelijke Verklaard (N.O) Dalam Perkara Perdata Di Pengadilan Negeri Pekanbaru (Studi Kasus Putusan No.22/Pdt.G/2015/PN.Pbr). Other thesis, Universitas Islam Riau.

Preview

Text 151010207.pdf Download (4MB) | Preview

Abstract

This claim was filed by Mursida Binti Sidi Tando as Plaintiff against Abuzar Bin Yunus Alias Bagindo Abuzar Bin Yunus as Defendant I. The main reason for the plaintiff filing this lawsuit is due to the sale of a plot of land carried out by Defendant I to Defendant II, then Defendant II sold it again a portion of the land to Defendant II without the knowledge and permission of plaintiff. Which is the act for the plaintiff is an act against the law. Therefore the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the verdict the author of this study, and for the plaintiff's claim, the judge decided the lawsuit the plaintiff was declared unacceptable (Niet Ontvankelijke Verklaard). The research that the authors examine sets, the main problem is about legal action that can be made by the plaintiff against the Judge's Decision declare the claim unacceptable (Niet Ontvankelijke Verklaard) as well regarding the judicial legal considerations in deciding whether the lawsuit is not acceptable (Niet Ontvankelijke Verklaard) in civil case No. 22 / Pdt.G / 2015 / PN.PBR. The method used in this study is viewed from an angle the type belongs to the type of normative legal research namely with studying case files No. 22 / Pdt.G / 2015 / PN.PBR. Whereas if seen from the point of its nature, this study belongs to research that is of a nature descriptive which means describing and giving clear details systematic on the subject matter under study. From the results of the research that the authors did, it can be stated that the plaintiff did not make any legal remedies for the decision decided by the Assembly Judge, because it is clear in the judges' considerations that a litde object is a plot of land, which is after it is done there is a difference in the examination by the Panel of Judges and size of the land. So that an absolute mistake is made by the plaintiff. Whereas the Judge's judgment in deciding civil cases No. 22 / Pdt.G / 2015 / PN.PBR is a judge stating that boundaries and sizes land in the posita is different from the boundaries and size of the land examined by the Panel of Judges. This causes the claim of the plaintiff to be blurred / obscure (obscuur libel). Therefore the considerations outlined The Panel of Judges in its decision was in accordance with the law of the civil procedure give me. Thus the reasons for the judge's consideration in the assembly deciding the case becomes the basis of the Panel of Judges in deciding the plaintiff's claim cannot be accepted (Niet Ontvankelijke Verklaard).

Actions (login required)

View Item