Petition to the court for recognition of the evidence provided by the plaintiff as inadmissible
Bostandyk District Court of Almaty
To Judge Tursymbaeva R.A.
Almaty, Bostandyk district,
mkr. Orbita 2, 20a.
+7 727 333 12 21.
From the defendants:
S . E . C7 born on 08/25/1993. IIN: . resident at:
Almaty city, Al-Farabi Avenue, building no., apartment no.
S. P. K7 , born on 02/20/1992, IIN: . residing at:
Almaty city, A. Street, building No. 140, apartment No. 296
Representative by proxy:
Law and Law Law Firm
BIN 201240021767
79 Abylai Khan Ave., office 304, Almaty.
info@zakonpravo.kz / www.zakonpravo.kz
+ 7 727 978 5755; +7 708 578 5758.
Plaintiff: G.O. A. born on 05/13/1974,
residing at: Russian Federation,
Republic of Tatarstan, Tukayevsky district,
The village of Biyurgan, 38 Novaya Street.
The petition
on the recognition of evidence as inadmissible
In your proceedings, there is a civil case registered No. 7520-23-00-2/24027 dated 11/28/2023 on the claim of G. O. Anatolyevich (Hereinafter the Plaintiff) against S. E. S., S. P. K. (Hereinafter the Defendant) and with the involvement of third parties, a private notary of Almaty, Gulnara Seitzhanova (Hereinafter the Notary) and K. E.P. on the recognition of the transaction as invalid and the recovery of the amount, bringing the side of the transaction back to its original position.
Thus, in accordance with the purchase and sale agreement dated July 15, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as the agreement), S. E. S., with the consent of the spouse of S. P. K. (hereinafter referred to as the defendants), sold G. O. A. (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) a Toyota Land Cruiser 200 car, manufactured in 2016, identification number JTMCV02J504180477, state registration number 752MCZ02 (hereinafter referred to as the car). On July 15, 2022, this agreement was certified by a private notary of Almaty, Gulnara Zhusupkhanovna Seitzhanova, registered in the register for No. 2334.
Accordingly, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, in accordance with Articles 151, 152, 154, 155 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan by agreement of the parties, there was a completely written form of the transaction, which was notarized and registered.
According to paragraph 2 of the Contract, the plaintiff paid the defendants an amount of 24,900,000 tenge, and according to paragraph 4 of the Contract, it follows that the issuance of the contract to the plaintiff indicates a full settlement between the parties.
- In civil law relations, each party must fulfill its obligations under the contract, and on the part of the Defendant, the contractual obligations were fulfilled properly, where, through authorized bodies, the above-mentioned car was removed from the state database for registration of vehicles and then the transit number 6512 MN was assigned and safely crossed the state border of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
Further, the plaintiff claims that on 07/19/2022, during an inspection of the car, the fact of a change in the chassis and engine numbers of the car was revealed in connection with these circumstances, the car was seized from the plaintiff, which is confirmed by the protocol on the seizure of the vehicle dated 07/19/2022.
- However, the Plaintiff submitted to the court a copy of the Protocol on the seizure of the vehicle dated 07/19/2022, where it is not visible which car, when, and by whom it was inspected and seized, respectively.
In accordance with Clause 5 of Article 68 of the CPC RK, circumstances cannot be considered established if only copies of documents are provided to confirm them, when the need to present the original follows from the requirements of the law.
The court also cannot consider the circumstances proved, which are confirmed only by a copy of a document or other written evidence when challenging its content, if:
1) the original document has been lost and has not been handed over to the court;
2) the copies of this document submitted by each of the disputing parties are not identical to each other;
3) it is impossible to establish the content of the original document with the help of other evidence.
In addition, the Plaintiff claims that the fact of changing the identification numbers of the body and engine is confirmed by the expert opinion No. 911. Further, on the basis of which, on August 05, 2022, the senior investigator of the OD OP No. 4 "Electrotechnical" Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia in Naberezhnye Chelny, a police major opened a criminal case on the grounds of a crime under Part 1 of art. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which is confirmed by the Resolution on the initiation of a criminal case dated August 05, 2022.
- As well as the Protocol on the seizure of the vehicle, the Plaintiff's side also provided the court with only a copy of the Expert Opinion for No. 911., and the Resolution on the initiation of a criminal case and its acceptance for production No. 12201920069000953 dated August 05, 2022. 68, 72 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, a copy of the documents is considered and is not subject to application, taking into account relevance, admissibility and reliability as evidence.
According to Articles 67, paragraphs 1, Article 68 of the CPC RK, evidence is considered reliable if, as a result of verification, it turns out that it corresponds to reality. Each evidence is also subject to assessment taking into account its relevance, admissibility, reliability, and all the evidence collected together is sufficient to resolve a civil case.
According to the Plaintiff's arguments, the Plaintiff sold a stolen vehicle with a fake body identification number, respectively, the transaction with the specified vehicle is not legitimate and not valid. And in the situation under consideration, the Plaintiff was misled in terms of the vehicle identification number, as a result of which the vehicle was seized and the Plaintiff is unable to use the property acquired under the transaction.
- The provisions of Articles 271, 272 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan stipulate that Obligations arise from a contract and the Obligation must be performed properly in accordance with the terms of the obligation and the requirements of the law, and in the absence of such conditions and requirements - in accordance with business practices or other commonly imposed requirements.
Accordingly, the defendant, in accordance with the requirements of the Legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, purchased the specified car in 2020 in the city of Karaganda from a citizen of the Republic of Kazakhstan, where the authorized authorities checked and issued the car properly during the re-registration and there were no problems from law enforcement agencies during the two years of operation of the car.
07/15/2022 According to the Car Purchase and Sale Agreement, the specified car was also rechecked and de-registered by the authorized authorities and a Transit number was assigned for transportation to the Russian Federation and the Plaintiff was present when the contract was drawn up. The arguments on the fact of the non-validity of the Purchase Agreement and the misleading of the Plaintiff are not substantiated.
Article 72 of the CPC RK stipulates that each party must prove the circumstances to which it refers as the basis of its claims.
We consider the Plaintiff's arguments to be unsubstantiated and unjustified from the point of view of relevance and admissibility as evidence in accordance with art. 68 of the CPC RK, each evidence is subject to assessment taking into account relevance, admissibility, reliability, and all the evidence collected together sufficiency to resolve a civil case – in this civil case, we observe the groundlessness of Claims and Defamation in relation to The defendant.
According to paragraph 4 of Article 8 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, citizens and legal entities must act in good faith, reasonably and fairly in exercising their rights, observing the requirements contained in the legislation and the moral principles of society. This obligation cannot be excluded or limited by the contract. Good faith, reasonableness and fairness of the actions of participants in civil law relations are assumed.
In accordance with Clause 5 of Article 68 of the CPC RK, circumstances cannot be considered established if only copies of documents are provided to confirm them, when the need to present the original follows from the requirements of the law.
The court also cannot consider the circumstances proved, which are confirmed only by a copy of a document or other written evidence when challenging its content, if:
1) the original document has been lost and has not been handed over to the court;
2) the copies of this document submitted by each of the disputing parties are not identical to each other;
3) it is impossible to establish the content of the original document with the help of other evidence.
By virtue of Article 13 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan, everyone has the right to defend their violated or disputed rights, freedoms or legally protected interests and on the basis of the above in accordance with Articles 67, 68, 72, CPC RK,
I ask the Court:
· To declare them inadmissible and not considered as evidence and exclude them from the materials of the civil case No. 7520-23-00-2/24027:
- a copy of the Protocol on vehicle seizure dated 07/19/2022;
- a copy of the expert's report No. 911;
- a copy of the Resolution on the initiation of a criminal case and its acceptance for production No. 12201920069000953 dated August 05, 2022.
With respect,
Representative by proxy
___________/ Sarzhanov G.T.
"___" __________ 2025 the year
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
