Submission of 2 October 2025: objection to late notice, evidence of absence and court dispatch records

The submission expressly bears the date 2 October 2025. The chronology uses that source date, before the hearing of 15 October; it does not invent a court-receipt date.

Kragujevac, 2 October 2025. Plaintiff, Milan Petrović Copy to: the defendant (one copy with attachments). Signature: _________________________________

The 2 October submission requested evidence concerning the earlier absence. This November source expressly records copies being filed and handed to the plaintiff. The connection follows the request and the recorded delivery; it does not turn the plaintiff’s proposed medical form, deadlines and other requirements into court orders.

It is noted that a photocopy of a report on temporary incapacity for work in the name of **Petrović Maja** and a photocopy of a specialist doctor’s report dated **9 June 2025** are placed in the case file, and that a copy is handed directly to the plaintiff.

Section IIIA of the 27 October submission expressly maintains the requests made on 2 October concerning justification of absence and dispatch of the 28 August order. The earlier submission is now available in full with its annexes.

### IIIA. REAFFIRMATION OF THE SUBMISSION OF 2 OCTOBER 2025 (HEARING OF 3 SEPTEMBER 2025 THAT DID NOT TAKE PLACE) — WITHOUT WAIVER I do not withdraw the requests in my Plaintiff’s Submission of 2 October 2025 concerning the adjournment of the hearing of 3 September 2025. I maintain: (i) the request that the defendant submit credible evidence of the representative’s incapacity to attend that hearing; (ii) the request that the court office’s records concerning dispatch of the notice/order of 28 August 2025 be obtained and placed in the file. In the event of non-compliance, I maintain the proposal made in that submission that the absence be considered unjustified, with the procedural consequences provided by the Civil Procedure Act. ### IV. CONCISE LEGAL BASIS (FAMILY-LAW ASPECT — 1976)

The 2 October submission challenges the notification and justification of the September cancellation and attaches the envelope, CSR request and order. The order remains a separate source; the plaintiff’s requests are not presented as its operative terms.

- The hearing for my examination was scheduled for 3 September 2025 at 10:00. - That morning I saw no notice for this case on the court’s noticeboard; after enquiring at the court, I was informed that the hearing had been postponed because of “health reasons affecting the defendant’s representative”. - The court’s order/notice is dated 28 August 2025, bears a Novi Sad postal postmark of 2 September 2025, and was delivered to me on 4 September 2025 (a photocopy of the envelope is attached). - The defendant’s request of 27 August 2025 (no. 560-111-1/2024) refers to the representative’s illness, but is not accompanied by any medical documentation. This sequence — postal postmark 2 September → delivery 4 September, after the hearing date of 3 September — objectively calls into question both the timeliness of service and the justification for the postponement.

This dated written submission recounts being informed at court on 3 September and delivery on 4 September, matching the author’s separately recorded account. The postal stamp independently supports 2 September; the later delivery date remains his account.

- That morning I saw no notice for this case on the court’s noticeboard; after enquiring at the court, I was informed that the hearing had been postponed because of “health reasons affecting the defendant’s representative”. - The court’s order/notice is dated 28 August 2025, bears a Novi Sad postal postmark of 2 September 2025, and was delivered to me on 4 September 2025 (a photocopy of the envelope is attached).

The response selects the October submission’s Section III/2 request for the 1984 file. The October submission also reaffirmed the separate 2 October requests for evidence of the representative’s impediment and the court registry’s dispatch records concerning 28 August. These three response pages do not identify the dispatch records. The link exposes the original requests, alongside the November hearing’s separately recorded medical-copy handover.

In the plaintiff’s submission of **29 October 2025**, in **Section III**, entitled **Arranging Procedural Prerequisites and Time Limits (Powers of Attorney and Time Limits)**, at **point 2 — Delivery of Complete Documentation**, subpoint 4, **“the complete file on incomplete adoption”**, the **plaintiff** states that the statement of claim includes the **Adoption Record no. Up. 02-987/84, dated 26 September 1984, designated as attachment no. 11** (on page 28 of the statement of claim), and that, in addition to the aforementioned documents, this submission provides the documentation from the incomplete-adoption file, case no. **UP 02-987/84**, namely: