2. In principle, the court cannot organize both parties to re-examine the evidence beyond the time limit for presenting evidence.
The above answers are given in strict accordance with the law, but in practice, some courts also have flexible practices. For example, if the original summary procedure is applied and the summary procedure is converted into ordinary procedure, the parties shall be given a new time limit for proof according to law, and the parties may submit the newly obtained evidence logically; In addition, if it is an ordinary procedure, some courts also give both parties a period of time to give evidence, and then organize the trial after the trial. These alternatives are actually to reduce the litigation burden of the parties and save trial resources.
If the court does not take the above alternative measures, the evidence provided by the parties can overturn the original determination after the expiration of the first-instance proof period. As long as the corresponding evidence is not new evidence stipulated by law, the court of first instance will not organize new cross-examination; During the second trial, if the other party does not agree to cross-examination, the court will not organize cross-examination between the two parties. After the final judgment, the party providing evidence may apply for a retrial and change the original judgment by starting the trial supervision procedure. According to the interpretation of the Supreme Court, the retrial of this case and the judgments of the first and second instance made by the court of first instance are not misjudged cases.