Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
0046476 AI generated

Court dismisses appeal for inept initial petition due to vague and generic factual allegations in reconvention.

Case Number 0046476
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Portugal (PT)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa confirmed the lower court's decision to dismiss the reconvention as an inept initial petition. The appellant argued that the respondent's claim of spending 1650 contos on urgent works lacked specific factual support, offering only a vague indication of facts rather than concrete details. The court ruled that such generic allegations fail to meet the legal requirement for a valid cause of pedir, necessitating the dismissal of the instance.

Legislator headnote

Official

CAUSA DE PEDIR INEPTIDÃO DA PETIÇÃO INICIAL ABSOLVIÇÃO DA INSTÂNCIA RECONVENÇÃO

Keywords

AI generated
inept petition vague facts generic allegations concrete facts dismissal of instance reconvention nullity procedural ineptitude

Cited Legislation

AI generated
CPC67 Art. 193
CPC67 Art. 272
CPC67 Art. 273
CPC67 Art. 498

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

[Nº CONVENCIONAL] JTRL00008801

[Nº DO DOCUMENTO] RL199211260046476

[PRIVACIDADE] 1

[PROCESSO NO TRIBUNAL RECURSO] 4632/882

[TEXTO INTEGRAL] N

[TRIBUNAL RECURSO] T J SINTRA 1J

[URL] https://www.dgsi.pt/jtrl.nsf/33182fc732316039802565fa00497eec/36636276CF9335688025680300014ED5?OpenDocument

SUMÁRIO

I - Não indica causa de pedir minimamente inteligível o Reconvinte que, na reconvenção, alega tão somente que dispendeu 1650 contos na execução de obras urgentes e inadiáveis; pois que fundamenta a sua pretensão com uma "indicação vaga ou genérica dos factos" e não em "facto ou factos concretos".

II - Por efeito do referido em I o peticionado reconvencionalmente é inepto e nulo, devendo o reconvindo ser absolvido da instância.