TO THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

File No : 2015/….Basis

IN A STATEMENT

DEFENDANTS (COUNTER-PLAINTIFFS) :

ATTORNEYS:

PLAINTIFFS(COUNTER-DEFENDANTS) : ……… A.Sh

ATTORNEYS:

SUBJECT : ../../…. it is the petition that contains our declarations against the dated reclamation petition.

INSTRUCTIONS

1. According to the expert report prepared without evaluating the statements of the defendant’s witnesses and the evidence submitted to the file by us in this case, we do not accept the reclamation petition stating that the plaintiff has increased the subject of the case.

2.The defect present in the file has been unfairly attributed to us in expert reports with exorbitant defect rates missing and without adequate examination. The petition contains our objection to the detailed expert report that we have submitted to the file on this issue, and the deficiencies in this report are stated in the petition. It is not possible for us to accept that the court will go to a decision in accordance with the erroneous expert report submitted to the file without considering our objections.

3.Despite all these findings that we have put forward, it is clearly against fairness and the law to attribute a defect to us. Based on these defect rates attributed to our client, it is never acceptable for us to increase the case price of the plaintiff with the reclamation petition in question, as it loads the entire defect to our client.

4. We do not accept the reclamation petition submitted by the other party without evaluating all the objections made by us against the expert reports and the information and documents we have submitted to the file containing the deficiencies in the expert report, that is, without eliminating the legal contradictions that need to be made in terms of the defect that is considered the basis of the file.

5. On the other hand, the Expert reports submitted to the file on the subject are also in complete conflict with each other. While a secondary defect was attributed to our client in the first expert report, it is a clear and serious contrast that this defect rate was changed to be almost a primary defect in the next report. While there is a clear contradiction between the reports submitted to the file by two different delegations, it is not possible to accept the reclamation of the file without deciphering this contradiction. Considering the nature of the case, the first action to be taken by the court is to deconstruct the contradiction between the reports while a definitive determination regarding the defect has not yet been made. As such, the decision to be made by your Dear Court on the basis of Expert reviews prepared incorrectly in this form of the file will constitute a violation of fairness and the law.

6. We do not accept the reclamation petition submitted by the other party to the file based on unfair and unlawful and conflicting reports with each other.

CONCLUSION AND STATEMENT: For the reasons we have explained above;

1.First of all, we inform you that we do not accept the reclamation petition submitted by the other party requesting that the defect rate be re-determined in accordance with our objections made in this regard by resolving the contradictions in terms of the defect.

2. For this reason, we respectfully and knowingly submit and request that the file be decided to be re-submitted to an expert panel of experts who can prepare a report both in terms of defects and calculation.

Defendant (Counter-Plaintiff) Attorneys