Widayati, Diah (2023) Tinjauan Terhadap Penolakan Atas Permohonan Peninjauan Kembali Dalam Perkara Nomor : 80.pk/pdt/2017. Other thesis, Universitas Islam Riau.

Text 161010461.pdf - Submitted Version Restricted to Registered users only Download (1MB) | Request a copy

Abstract

The reason for the balance of the panel of judges of the Supreme Court to reject the request for judicial review is not appropriate, because the Panel of Judges of the Supreme Court does not provide clear legal considerations as stated in Article 74 of Law Number 5 of 2004 concerning Amendments to Law Number 14 of 1985. As well as the judge's consideration that the proof of the letter submitted by the applicant cannot be used as a novom also violates Article 67 of Law Number 5 of 2004 concerning Amendments to Law Number 14 of 1985 concerning the Supreme Court. The main problems in this study are 1) how are the legal considerations of the Panel of Judges in legal efforts to review the civil case Number 80.PK/Pdt/2017 and 2) how are the execution efforts in the civil case Number 80.PK/Pdt/2017. The type of research is normative law research or library research which specifically studies or examines the decisions of Civil Case No. 02/Pdt.G/2012/ PN.Rgt, Appeal No. 01/Pdt/2013/PTR Cassation No. 2741.K/PDT/2013 Review No. 80.PK/Pdt/2017. The legal considerations of the panel of judges in the legal effort to review the civil case number 80.PK/Pdt/2017, the panel of supreme judges is not appropriate, because the Panel of Judges of the Supreme Court does not provide clear considerations the law states in Article 74 of Law Number 5 of 2004 concerning Amendments to Law Number 14 of 1985. As well as the judge's consideration that the evidence of the letter submitted by the applicant cannot be used as a novom also violates Article 67 of Law Number 5 of 2004 concerning Amendments to Law Number 14 of 1985 concerning the Supreme Court . The panel of supreme judges only stated that the evidence submitted by the petitioner for review did not belong to the novum. The panel of supreme judges did not provide an explanation for the novom's rejection. The execution attempt in the civil case number 80.PK/Pdt/2017 was carried out by the Rengat District Court, when the execution was not attended by the local government. The execution party saw in real terms the area where the execution was carried out was in which jurisdiction. But the fact that happened in the field, the effort to carry out the execution does not reflect the law that is beneficial for the area being executed.

Actions (login required)

View Item