OBJECTION TO THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A FORENSIC EXAMINATION

To the Maktaaral District Court of the Turkistan Region

Maktaaral District, Myrzakent village,17 Madikhodzhaev Street.

To Judge E.B. Slambekov

+7 778 111 3935

Plaintiff: EHA

IIN ....

Turkistan Region, Maktaaral District,Al-...., T... village, 51.

Representative under Power of Attorney:

Law Firm“Zakon i Pravo”

BIN 201240021767.

Republic of Kazakhstan, 050002,Almaty, Almaly District,79/71 Abylai Khan Avenue, Office 304.

info@zakonpravo.kz; www.zakonpravo.kz

+7 708 971 78 58 / +7 727 978 57 55.

OBJECTION

to the Defendant’s Motion for the Appointment of a Forensic Examination

A civil case No. 5143-26-3-1/2012 is pending before Your Honour concerning the claim of EHA against the Defendant BII for recovery of damage caused to property.

On September 22, 2026, the Defendant’s representative S.T. filed a motion with the court for the appointment of a forensic examination, requesting that the technical condition of residential house No. 51, the causes of the damage, and the amount of material damage be re-determined. The motion states that the residential house was constructed in 1957, that natural wear and tear was not taken into account, and that the restoration cost was overestimated.

The Plaintiff’s side disagrees with the said motion and considers that there are no sufficient grounds for granting it.

In order to establish the disputed circumstances in the case, prior to filing the claim with the court, the Plaintiff engaged specialists possessing special knowledge and arranged for a technical examination of residential house No. 51. The examination was conducted by specialists of IE “Stroy Expert i Otsenka”, E.A. Kudaibergenov and B.T. Saparhan, who provided the relevant conclusions.

At the same time, the examination was not conducted unilaterally or secretly from the Defendant. The Defendant was notified in advance of the date, time and place of the examination and was given an opportunity to participate in its conduct. The Plaintiff’s side sent the Defendant the relevant notice and invited him to participate in the examination conducted by the specialists. However, despite having been duly notified, the Defendant voluntarily did not participate in the examination.

Therefore, the Defendant had a real opportunity to ask the specialists questions during the examination, provide his explanations, submit documents concerning the technical condition of the property, and directly observe the course of the examination. However, he did not avail himself of this opportunity.

Furthermore, in the present motion, the Defendant does not specify what particular methodological or technical requirements were violated in conducting the examination by the specialists of IE “Stroy Expert i Otsenka”. Nor has any specific professionally substantiated counter-opinion been submitted concerning the qualifications of the specialists, the examination methods used, or the calculations set out in the conclusion.

The Rules for the Organization and Conduct of Forensic Examinations and Studies were approved by Order No. 484 of the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated April 27, 2017. However, in his motion, the Defendant does not specify what particular procedure or methodological requirement for conducting the examination was violated and has not submitted evidence confirming such violations.

One of the Defendant’s principal arguments is that residential house No. 51 was constructed in 1957 and that its natural wear and tear was not taken into account.

However, the year of construction of the residential house was not concealed from the specialists. During the examination, the specialists reviewed the technical documentation for the residential house and directly examined the actual technical condition of the property. Therefore, there are no grounds to present the fact that the residential house was constructed in 1957 as a newly established circumstance.

Moreover, the Defendant merely makes general statements that “natural wear and tear was not taken into account” and that “the restoration cost was overestimated”. No alternative expert opinion, technical report, cost estimate, or other results of a special examination confirming these arguments have been submitted.

The Defendant also argues that it has not been established to what extent the damaged part of residential house No. 49 affected residential house No. 51. However, this issue was included in the scope of the examination conducted by the specialists engaged by the Plaintiff, and the relevant conclusions have been submitted to the case file. The Plaintiff fully agrees with the said conclusions and requests that they be assessed together with the other evidence in the case.

Pursuant to Part 1 of Article 82 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, a forensic examination is appointed where, for the purpose of establishing circumstances relevant to the case, it is necessary to conduct an examination based on special scientific knowledge. Thus, the appointment of an examination is not an end in itself, but constitutes a procedural means applied where a special examination is objectively necessary to establish the relevant circumstances of the case.

At the same time, Article 90 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan establishes specific grounds for conducting an additional or repeated examination: insufficient clarity or completeness of the conclusion, the emergence of additional questions, insufficient substantiation of the conclusion, doubts as to its findings, or a material violation of the procedure or methodology for conducting the examination.

The Defendant’s motion does not specify any specific circumstances of this nature. In fact, the Defendant merely expresses disagreement with the results of the examination submitted by the Plaintiff.

Disagreement with a conclusion, in the absence of specific evidence based on special knowledge that refutes its findings, does not in itself automatically give rise to the need to re-examine the same property.

Furthermore, the appointment of a new examination will extend the period for consideration of the case and impose additional expenses on the parties. At the same time, where the Defendant failed to exercise the opportunity to participate in the initial examination, of which he had been notified in advance, a request to re-examine the same circumstances must be substantiated from the standpoint of procedural necessity.

In view of the foregoing, the Plaintiff considers the conclusions of the specialists of IE “Stroy Expert i Otsenka”, E.A. Kudaibergenov and B.T. Saparhan, sufficient for assessment together with the other evidence in the case, while the Defendant’s motion does not set out any specific and proven circumstances objectively necessitating the appointment of a new forensic examination.

Based on the foregoing, and guided by Articles 77, 82 and 90 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan,

WE ASK THE COURT:

• To deny the Defendant BII’s motion for the appointment of a forensic examination.

Respectfully,

Representative under Power of Attorney: I.M. Kenesbek

Attention!   

       Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.  

 For more information,  please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085. 

Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office  Court Cases