Abstract
In a judicial analysis the implementation of seizure of immovable objects (research study in Batam District Court) aims to discuss the Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 48 of 2009 Article 54 and Article 55 Concerning the implementation of court decisions, Article 195 to Article 224 HIR / Article 206 sd Article 258 R.Bg (concerning procedures for execution in general), Article 225 HIR / Article 259 R.Bg (concerning decisions that convicted a defendant of committing certain acts), Article 180 HIR / Article 191 R.Bg, SEMA Number 3 Year 2000 and SEMA Number 4 of 2001 (regarding the implementation of decisions that do not yet have permanent legal force, that is, necessarily (Uitvoerbaar bij voorraad and provisions). A court decision is meaningless if it is not implemented, therefore the judge's decision has an executive legal force namely to carry out what is stipulated in the decision by force with the help of state equipment, but in practice it often happens ham batan, such as: The existence of interference from other parties outside of the litigation party. The existence of resistance from the petitioned execution by carrying out anarchic acts against officers who want to carry out seizure of execution. Therefore, the authors suggest that Judges, Registrars, and Bailiffs of the District Court master the law of execution and confiscation, so that they are not mistaken and can carry out the execution of court decisions properly and correctly.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
