The plaintiff submitted that he had obtained a working capital borrowing facility from the first defendant, but that he had never received a copy of the agreement, despite making repeated requests to the first defendant. The conduct of the first defendant was therefore, the plaintiff submitted, in contravention of art 1338 of the Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata), and constituted a default on the parties' agreement. As a result, the plaintiff did not know when the agreement concluded nor the details of the repayments he was required to make in favour of the first defendant. Accordingly, the plaintiff submitted that he could not be held solely responsible if he failed to make a repayment pursuant to the agreement because the defendant had deliberately concealed the agreement from the plaintiff, contrary to art 1320 of the Civil Code.
When the plaintiff fell into arrears, the first defendant sought to auction the security property leveraged by the plaintiff to secure the loan. The plaintiff submitted, however, that the first defendant had failed to issue him with a warning before auctioning the property.
The court dismissed the plaintiff's application due to several formulaic errors contained therein. First, the plaintiff had failed to identify a legal or legislative basis to establish a legal relationship between the parties. Secondly, the plaintiff's provisional prayer for relief (petitum provisi), prayer for relief (petitum), and outline of claim (posita) differed insofar as the outline of claim defined the defendant's conduct as a default, while the provisional prayer for relief sought the suspension of the auction of the property, and the prayer for relief declared the property lawful and of value. More importantly, the court found that the plaintiff had failed to include in its claim the Office of State Assets and Auction Services (Kantor Pelayanan Kekayaan Negara dan Lelang) as a co-defendant.