We observe that the “principle of abstractness” and the criterion of “contrary to the ordinary. Course of life” in bills of exchange prevent the filing. Of “negative declaration actions regarding bills of exchange” to a great extent. And in particular, the 19th and 11th Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation. Do not favour the application of the provisions of “invocation” (Art. 109 et seq. of the CCP) in these cases.
The high court (19th and 11th Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation) on this issue;
-“…the request of the defendant to ask the defendant about the reason why the promissory. Notes subject to the lawsuit were taken in return for goods or why they were taken is not appropriate…” (19th HD. 20.11.2019 T. 285/5221)
-“…that the defendant’s defence of mere insubstantiality remains valid, that the allegation of non-payment is also a criminal act, and that it is not possible to prove it by oath and examination…” (11th HD. 21.06.2021 T. 6291/5241)
We observe that the court has approved the non-application. Of the provisions on the invocation in such cases.
A- In a dispute pending in Istanbul.
“A person who states that his monthly income is 5.000,00 TL. That he works as a tradesman, that he has been tried in various. Heavy criminal courts for the offences. Of ‘forging cheques/ promissory notes’ and ‘forgery of official documents’. And that there are many execution proceedings against him. As ‘debtor’ in the execution offices, has filed a lawsuit against a very wealthy. Company based on various bonds -which bear the ‘in cash’ record- on different dates. For 2. 200.000,00 USD + 1.250.000,00 USD + 3.750.000,00 TL + 3.150.000,00 TL (with a present value of approximately 68,8 Million), and the courts have not been able to decide on the “summoning of the parties” for 2-3 years in the negative assessment lawsuits filed against him!
NOTE: 1) In this case, in one of the lawsuits filed. The plaintiff-debtor submitted to the court a (special) report from a graphologist stating. That “the signature on the promissory. Note does not belong to its representative”, and the defendant-creditor. Submitted to the court a report from another graphologist. Stating that “the signature on the promissory note belongs to the debtor”…
The court sent the file to the Forensic Medicine Institution. The first report stated that “the signature on the promissory note. Does not belong to the debtor”, and upon the objection. Of the defendant-creditor to this report. The second report issued by the Forensic Medicine. Institution stated that “the signature on the promissory note belongs to the debtor”.
Upon the court sending the file back to the Forensic Medicine. Institution with the request for a new report by the (5) member Supreme. Board of Experts, the (5) member Supreme. Board of Experts. Unanimously issued a report stating that “the signature on the promissory note belongs to the debtor”!
2)In an -unnamed/unsigned- petition sent to the court file; it was reported. That “the defendant-creditor created the signature of the debtor. On the promissory note subject to the lawsuit by means. Of a machine similar to a photocopy machine brought from abroad”.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.