"The witness, Mr. Arad: What's under the 'Verand/garden' column?
Adv. Rimmer: Yes.
The witness, Mr. Arad: 135.8.
Adv. Rimmer: Now I say that with all the permits, from the first to the last, this is what the municipality approved.
The witness, Mr. Arad: Okay.
Adv. Rimmer: When you received the court's question to give a public servant certificate, you weren't interested in looking into this matter, what, territories, what was approved in the permit, what was not approved in the permit?
The witness, Mr. Arad: No."
I will note that in the course of the plaintiff's cross-examination, she was presented with the plan (Appendix 10 to the defendant's affidavits) and she was asked to explain how she wished to learn from it in support of her claims, but she did not know how to explain what was stated in it - and thus the defendant's claim should be reinforced, and accordingly it is clear that in real time the plaintiff did not rely on this plan as indicating the actual attachment of a garden in this area to her apartment (see pages 51-53 of her cross-examination). In contrast to the plaintiff's testimony, which shows, as stated, that she was not at all aware of this plan (including the table of areas) in real time, Rubinstein testified that in real time the defendant and the municipality did not pay attention to the fact that there was an error in the table of areas (page 99, line 7) and that it was a mistake that originated in an attempt to attach the area, an attempt that was refused by the municipality (page 85, lines 7-15). See below in section 57).
- The concentration of the above shows that - contrary to the plaintiff's claims - the building permit did not approve the attachment of a garden with an area of 135.8 square meters to her apartment. Moreover, I am of the opinion that precisely from the error that exists in the table of areas in relation to the drawing, it is possible to find support for the plaintiff's claim, and accordingly it initially submitted a plan with the annexation of the garden area, but after discussions with the municipality, this plan was changed. The problem is that in the framework of the plan that was changed - the plan was changed, but due to an error, the table of areas was not changed. With regard to the manner in which the planning process is conducted, Rubinstein testified from line 32 on page 77 to line 3 on page 78:
The witness, Rubinstein: The planning process is done in such a way that a permit application is submitted, ping pong is conducted, most of it is in meetings, most of it is in hand scribbles on garmushka that are submitted. Even then, we would really work with garmuskas, not in computerized programs like today where everything you say is monitored. It didn't exist at that stage. And the examiner and the person who will handle the case indicates what repairs need to be made. and accordingly the decision of the Amendments Committee was given,