Studi Kasus Putusan Pengadilan Tinggi Mataram Nomor 183/PDT/2023/PT MTR tentang Pemeriksaan Setempat Gugatan Kurang Pihak dan Implikasi Putusan terhadap Objek Sengketa
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62383/aliansi.v2i5.1251Keywords:
Absence of Necessary Party, Court Decision, Judicial Site Inspection, Objection, Ownership StatusAbstract
The Mataram High Court Decision Number 183/PDT/2023/PT MTR, which upheld the Selong District Court Decision Number 59/PDT/2023/PN SEL, stated that the Appellants' (formerly the Plaintiffs) lawsuit was inadmissible because there were parties who had not been involved in the case (lack of parties). The legal fact regarding this lack of parties had actually emerged since the on-site examination stage conducted by the Panel of Judges at the first instance. In fact, this had also been expressly conveyed by the Appellees (formerly the Defendants) through an exception. However, the Panel of Judges rejected the exception and ultimately contradictorily declared the lawsuit inadmissible. This study emphasizes the urgency of considering the results of the on-site examination in relation to the lack of parties and its implications for the ownership status of the disputed object after the decision. The research method used is a normative juridical approach, with analysis referring to statutory provisions, legal doctrine, and civil law principles. Specifically, this study highlights the law of evidence and the position of on-site examination in the judicial process. The research results show that on-site inspections actually play a crucial role in assessing evidence and witness statements related to the existence of parties who should be called into the lawsuit. However, this urgency is lost because the panel of judges' considerations are inconsistent with the provisions regarding the strength of evidence as stipulated in Article 284 of the RBg. Furthermore, the exception regarding the lack of parties whose substance is similar to the results of the on-site inspection is actually set aside. A further implication of this decision is that the ownership status of the disputed object does not change. After the decision is rendered, the object remains in the possession of the Respondents, without legal clarity regarding who the party legally has authority over it.
Downloads
References
Agus, S. (2023, Mei 21). Problematika penerapan eksepsi dalam praktik peradilan perdata. Hukumonline. https://www.hukumonline.com/berita/a/problematika-penerapan-eksepsi-dalam-praktik-peradilan-perdata-lt64087074a2149/?page=2
Ahmad, M., Mulyani, Z., & Anang, S. P. (2022). Legalitas hukum pihak penggugat dalam mengajukan gugatan di pengadilan dengan akta pengikatan jual beli. Banua Law Review, 4(1), 2.
Alfitra. (2018). Hukum pembuktian dalam beracara pidana, perdata, dan korupsi di Indonesia (Ed. revisi). Jakarta: Raih Asa Sukses.
Ali, I., & Muhammad, I. (2019). Hukum pembuktian (Cet. ke-1). Tangerang Selatan: Unpam Press.
Arto, A. M. (2008). Praktek perkara perdata pada pengadilan agama. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
Bagus, S. (2020, Mei 14). Pemeriksaan setempat dalam acara perdata. Hukumonline. https://www.hukumonline.com/berita/a/pemeriksaan-setempat-dalam-acara-perdata-lt5f90fd7126bfe/?page=3
Efa, L. F. (2016). Perbandingan HIR dan RBg sebagai hukum acara perdata positif di Indonesia. Bandung: Keni Media.
Efa, L. F., & Artaji. (n.d.). Hukum acara perdata. Dalam A. Miru (Ed.), Hukum perdata materiil dan formil. USAID, The Asia Foundation, & Kemitraan.
Ery, A. P., Herni, W., & Dharu, T. (2019). Arti penting jawaban atas gugatan sebagai upaya mempertahankan hak-hak tergugat. Law, Development & Justice Review, 2(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.14710/ldjr.v2i1.5135
Geoffrey, R. QC. (1993). Freedom, the individual and the law. New York: Penguin Books.
Hamzah, P., Sufirman, R., & Salle. (2022). Analisis yuridis terhadap putusan hakim yang menyatakan gugatan penggugat tidak dapat diterima. Journal of Lex Generalis (JLS), 3(4), 622.
Hulman, P. (2013). Kumpulan kaidah hukum putusan Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia tahun 1953–2008 beserta penggolongannya. Jakarta: [Penerbit tidak diketahui].
Josef, M. M. (2007). Putusan hakim dalam penegakan hukum di Indonesia. Jurnal Hukum Pro Justisia, 25(2), 138.
Krisna, P. S., & Roida, N. (2025). Eksepsi dalam perkara perdata sebagai hak tergugat dalam persidangan di pengadilan. JALAKOTEK: Journal of Accounting Law Communication and Technology, 2(1), 202. https://doi.org/10.57235/jalakotek.v2i1.4484
M. Natsir, A. (2014). Hermeneutika putusan hakim: Pendekatan multidisipliner dalam memahami putusan peradilan perdata. Yogyakarta: UII Press.
M. Yahya, H. (2017). Hukum acara perdata: Tentang gugatan, persidangan, penyitaan, pembuktian, dan putusan pengadilan. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.
Manalu, B. R. (2025, Mei 17). Mastering civil procedure law: Effective litigation strategies for legal practitioners. Seminar disampaikan pada ALSA Seminar and Workshop in Cooperation with Siregar Setiawan Manalu Partnership.
Ni Putu, R. K. S., & Ni Luh, P. G. S. K. D. (2020). Eksistensi teori pembuktian positief wettelijk bewijstheorie dalam pembuktian perkara perdata. Jurnal Akses, 12(2), 135.
Rai, M., & Anita, A. (2015). Buku ajar hukum acara perdata. Bandung: Fakultas Hukum Universitas Padjadjaran.
Ramdani, W. S. (2023). Putusan pengadilan. Bandung: Mimbar Pustaka.
Retnowulan, S., & Iskandar, O. (1979). Hukum acara perdata dalam teori dan praktik. Bandung: Mandar Maju.
Rico, M. F. K., Elko, L. M., & Ronny, S. (2023). Pelaksanaan pemeriksaan setempat sebagai bahan pertimbangan hakim dalam memutus perkara perdata. Jurnal Fakultas Hukum Unsrat Lex Administratum, 12(5), 4.
Samsiati, Faizal, K., & Laila, M. A. (2024). Prinsip tuntas sebagai manifestasi keadilan dalam upaya rekonstruksi putusan atas gugatan tidak dapat diterima. JUDEX LAGUENS: Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan PP. IKAHI, 2(1), 25–54. https://doi.org/10.25216/ikahi.2.1.4.2024.25-54
Sandy, S. R. (2021). Kajian yuridis pemberian bantuan hukum dalam proses penyelesaian perkara perdata. Jurnal Lex Privartum, 9(3), 266.
Sarwono. (2011). Hukum acara perdata: Teori dan praktik. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.
Sovia, H. (2017, Desember 29). Perbedaan gugatan perdata dengan gugatan TUN. Hukumonline. https://www.hukumonline.com/klinik/a/perbedaan-gugatan-perdata-dengan-gugatan-tun-lt59b0ad66be83a/
Sri, W., & Bambang, S. (2007). Hukum acara perdata dan perkembangannya di Indonesia. Yogyakarta: Gama Media.
Subekti. (1989). Hukum acara perdata (Cet. ke-3). Bandung: Binacipta.
Sudikno, M. (1993). Hukum acara perdata Indonesia. Yogyakarta: Liberty.
The Law Dictionary Featuring Black's Law Dictionary (2nd ed.). (n.d.). Ex officio. The Law Dictionary. https://thelawdictionary.org/ex-officio/
Wirjono, P. (2007). Hukum acara perdata di Indonesia. Bandung: Sumur Bandung.
Yopi, J. (2016). Makna irah-irah "Demi keadilan berdasarkan Ketuhanan yang Maha Esa" pada sertifikat hak tanggungan (Tesis Magister, Universitas Brawijaya). Fakultas Hukum Universitas Brawijaya.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Aliansi: Jurnal Hukum, Pendidikan dan Sosial Humaniora
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
