In short
A complaint in enforcement and an objection to the payment order are not the same petition. A complaint does not stand in for an objection to the debt. A complaint is an allegation that an act of the enforcement office is contrary to the statute, or that an act that had to be done was not done, and it goes to the enforcement court. An objection to the payment order is a defence relating to the debt itself, its amount, its maturity, or jurisdiction. In ordinary proceedings without a judgment, this defence is as a rule written to the enforcement office. Two records give two results.
Two requests give two results
An objection debates the subject of the proceedings and the debt. An objection made in time, in ordinary proceedings without a judgment, as a rule stops the proceedings. The condition of this stop stands under the heading an objection to enforcement proceedings. This text does not copy that time and the items of the petition. A complaint speaks of a concrete act, such as an attachment, a sale, a service, or an interest line, having been done contrary to the statute. How the act will be described is under the heading a complaint in enforcement. What stands here is only why the two papers do not stand in for each other.
A sentence of "I have no debt" is not the name of the irregularity on the record of the act. The irregularity on the record is not an admission that the debt did not arise either. The typical sentences of an objection are the debt, the amount, the maturity, and jurisdiction. The typical sentence of a complaint is that the act written on the record did not conform to the statute, or that the act that had to be written was not written. If the two sentences are melted on the same paper, the authority may not be able to draw from the document which one is wanted. An authority that cannot draw it is not treated as having opened both routes.
That the list of property on the attachment record is incomplete is not an allegation that the debt never arose. An allegation that the amount on the payment order is too large is not a defect of form of the record either. The reader separates which sentence of the petition wants a result. If there is no result sentence, the heading by itself is not treated as having opened a route.
The authority is read from the heading
In ordinary proceedings without a judgment, an objection to the payment order goes to the enforcement office, and a complaint goes to the enforcement court. In proceedings on a negotiable instrument, the authority for an objection may change. That separation stays in the article on the objection, and it is not rebuilt here. An authority that changes does not make a complaint an objection to the debt. A paper given to the enforcement court under the heading "I have no debt" is not treated as having stood in for an objection to the payment order. A note left at the enforcement office that the attachment record is irregular is not treated as having stood in for a complaint either. The door is read from the heading and the addressee.
If the addressee line is blank, the paper is not treated as having gone to the right place. An enforcement file number and a court file number are not the same number. The sequence number of a paper given to the office does not give birth to a court record. A court fee does not stand in for the objection record at the office. Which number belongs to which request is read from the stamp on the paper. If there is no stamp, a record is not assumed.
An allegation of irregular service is not the absence of the debt either. If it is said that the payment order never went, or went to the wrong person, what is spoken is the act of service itself. This allegation is not written as the short name of a sentence denying the debt. If the service slip does not stand, the slip is not completed with a delivery that is remembered. If the slip stands, the irregularity is read from the ground on the slip. While there is no ground, it is not said that there was no service.
A complaint does not revive a missed objection
A complaint given after the time provided for an objection to the payment order has passed does not reopen that time. A missed defence is not treated as an objection when it is named as an irregularity of an act. In the other direction, an objection made in time has not by itself complained of the irregularity on the attachment record. If the objection petition does not speak of the attachment at all, that petition is not treated as having covered an attachment made later either. Each act wants its own paper.
Lifting or setting aside, which the creditor may go to after the objection, is not the continuation of a complaint. Lifting stands under the heading lifting of the objection, and setting aside under an action to set the objection aside. Neither is the result of a complaint petition. The refusal of a complaint does not have the objection treated as never made. If the timely record of the objection stands, that record is not erased by the closing of the complaint file.
A complaint record does not by itself produce the stop that a timely objection gave birth to. A stay exists if it was asked separately and entered in the enforcement file. A stay that was not entered has not erased the hour of the sale. This text does not write the petition for a stay and the calendar of the sale. A number of days is not written either. The day is read from the service line of the relevant paper. If there is no line, the day is not borrowed from the date of the other paper.
Two headings on the same paper
Writing on a single petition both "I object to the debt" and "the act is irregular" does not open both routes by itself. If the authority cannot separate which request belongs to which door, the file stays incomplete. The incompleteness is not treated as the right name having been given later. The petition writes the route that is wanted by its name. A route whose name was not written is not the annex of the other. A record on the list of annexes does not become a request for a complaint if there is no complaint in the heading. If there is no objection in the heading, a sentence of debt written on the back of the record does not give birth to an objection record.
If the two requests will really be written apart, the two addressees stand apart too. If one is the enforcement office and the other the enforcement court, a single envelope is not treated as having opened both doors. Which copy reached which desk is read by a receipt or an electronic record. If there is no receipt, arrival is not assumed. A copy that did not arrive is not completed as the annex of the other.
A writing that is often mixed is ending the result paragraph in a single sentence. A finding that the debt does not exist, and the setting aside of the act, are not the same result. The petition separates which result is wanted. A result that does not separate is not treated as two decisions having been given by the authority. If the decision speaks of a single request, the other request has not been judged in that decision either.
Which request the service starts
Service of the payment order is not the day the act that is the subject of the complaint was learned. Service of an attachment or sale record is not the start of an objection to the payment order. Which paper belongs to which request is read from the file number and the name of the act on the envelope. If there is no envelope, the day is not completed. A frequent error is writing the date of a single envelope for both requests. The date is not carried outside the paper it belongs to.
A sale notice does not stand in for the payment order. Seeing the notice does not have an objection treated as made. That the enforcement office corrects an interest or lawyer's-fee line does not mean the debtor accepted the debt either. If the correction act is found irregular, this is the subject of a separate complaint. The correction is not the accepted state of the objection petition.
If there is more than one attachment, the date of each record is separate. Service of the first attachment is not treated as having taken the later attachment into the scope of the complaint too. If the later record is not in the file, that act is not written as if it never happened either. Whether it happened is read from the office statement. If there is no statement, the list of acts is not completed.
The creditor may be a complainant too
The route does not belong only to the debtor. The creditor may allege that an act of the office is contrary to the statute. The creditor's complaint does not mean the debtor accepted the debt. The debtor's objection does not announce the creditor's act as irregular by itself either. One side's paper does not erase the other side's request.
If the creditor named the debtor's objection as a complaint, this naming does not remove the objection. If the objection record stands in the enforcement file, it stands. The creditor's complaint does not by itself change the time or the result of that record. If lifting or setting aside is wanted, that request is written under its own name. The heading of a complaint is not the short name of a request for lifting.
Two petitions that the debtor's lawyer and the creditor's lawyer gave on the same day are not counted as a single paper. The addressee, the subject, and the result of each are read apart. If one is incomplete, the other has not completed it. The one that is incomplete is not treated as existing because it is not in the file.
Correction of an interest, lawyer's-fee, or expense line is not the short name of an objection to the debt either. These lines are an act on the table of the proceedings. If the act is found irregular, the subject is a complaint. An allegation that the debt did not arise is not built with a sentence that the interest line was written wrongly. In the other direction, a paper given as "I object to the interest line" is not treated as having denied the principal claim on the payment order. Which line is wanted is read from the result sentence of the petition. If the result says the table is to be lifted as a whole, and the ground shows only one line, the authority has not seen both requests. If the statement of the table is not in the file, which line is irregular is not completed.
Conclusion
A complaint does not deny the debt. An objection to the payment order is not an application about the irregularity of an office act. The same petition does not give both results. A missed objection is not revived under the name of a complaint. A day is not written in this text. The frame is on the enforcement and bankruptcy law page. Which heading was given may be separated from the papers through contact. The basis is the provisions of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code No. 2004.