For relevant facts see Purbalingga Religious Court Decision No. 1721 of 2013.
The appellant was granted an interlocutory order, which required the judge of the lower court (Purbalingga Religious Court) to reopen the proceeding, summons both the appellant and respondent, and seek the following:
- an explanation regarding the object of the ijarah and in whose possession the item was;
- an explanation on the meaning of a sentence contained in the relevant multi-service ijarah financing agreement dated 13 September 2011, which stated that the customer, in developing his business, had submitted a request to the bank to obtain a multi-service ijarah financing agreement, the profit from which would be shared propotionally between the bank and customer in accordance with the extent of the financing from the bank and capital from the customer.