The reconsideration (peninjauan kembali) applicant, previously the plaintiff/appellant/cassation applicant, herein referred to as the plaintiff, submitted a request for reconsideration in its claim against the reconsideration respondents and reconsideration co-respondents, previously the cassation respondents/defendants/respondents and co-cassation respondents/co-defendants/co-respondents, herein referred to as the defendants and co-defendants. The plaintiff submitted that he had purchased from a Bapak (Mr) Munasan a 250m2 property on 29 August 1975, and that the village head was aware of the purchase. The property had been transferred into the plaintiff's name in 1979 for the purposes of property tax and regional building fees. Unbeknownst to the plaintiff, however, on 29 July 2000, the property was bequeathed to another party, the fifth defendant, pursuant to a deed drafted by the first co-defendant. Furthermore, the fifth defendant requested that the first co-defendant have the second co-defendant issue the transfer of title in the name of the fifth defendant, with the second, third and fourth defendants serving as trustees (nadzir). On 12 May 2001, the plaintiff submitted that he was invited by the first defendant to discuss the matter of the land endowment. There he was shown a draft statement requiring his signature. Then, on 17 November 2010, the defendants, believing the statement was erroneous, drafted an invalidation of land endowment deed for the second co-defendant. On 29 July 2011 at the local office of religious affairs, the defendants prepared an invalidation report and invalidation declaration and deed of land endowment in relation to the property. The plaintiff submitted that, therefore, the defendants' conduct was evidence the plaintiff was the lawful owner of the property and that the defendants sought legal certainty over the matter in the form of a decision from the Bandung Religious Court. Moreover, that the plaintiff was entitled to IDR 500,000 per day for every day the court's decision was not implemented.
In dismissing this final appeal, the court found that the reason for reconsideration submitted by the plaintiff, that being that new evidence in the form of a relevant document had been discovered that had not been considered in the previous proceeding, failed to meet the prescribed requirement for new and admissible evidence in art 67(b) of Law No. 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court.