“The plaintiff is obliged to notify in the lawsuit petition which evidence will be used to prove the facts alleged. The plaintiff must attach the documents in their possession to the petition and provide information regarding where the documents not in their possession can be obtained from. (CCP Art. 140/5.) If the subsequent submission of a piece of evidence does not aim to delay the proceedings or if the failure to submit it on time is not caused by the fault of the relevant party, the court may allow that evidence to be presented later. (Decision of the General Assembly of Civil Chambers, 20.04.2016, Basis No. 2014/13-856, Decision No. 2016/523.) It is not possible to grant additional time to a plaintiff, who failed to notify any evidence during the stage of the exchange of petitions, to notify their evidence during the preliminary examination hearing (ön inceleme duruşması).”
T.C. COURT OF CASSATION 2nd CIVIL CHAMBER
Basis No: 2015/19509 Decision No: 2016/12319 Date: 27.06.2016 “Case Precedent”
COURT: Family Court TYPE OF LAWSUIT: Divorce
JUDGMENT: Upon the appeal of the judgment rendered by the local court following the trial of the case between the parties, the documents were read and considered:
The plaintiff is obliged to notify in the lawsuit petition which evidence will be used to prove the facts alleged. The plaintiff must attach the available documents to the petition and provide information on the source for documents not in their possession. (CCP Art. 140/5.) If the subsequent submission of a piece of evidence does not aim to delay the trial or if the failure to submit it on time does not stem from the fault of the party, the court may permit the evidence to be presented later. There is no possibility of granting a new period for the plaintiff, who did not declare any evidence during the exchange of petitions, to declare evidence during the preliminary examination hearing.
In the concrete case, the plaintiff man did not rely on witness evidence in his lawsuit petition. It was not correct for the court to grant a 2-week peremptory period to the plaintiff man—who stated he had witnesses during the preliminary examination hearing on 11.11.2014—to declare his evidence and subsequently hear his witnesses; this required a reversal.
CONCLUSION: It was unanimously decided on 27.06.2016 to REVERSE the appealed judgment for the reason shown above, and since the judgment is reversed, there is no need to examine other appeal objections for now.