A new interpretation of the time limit for adducing evidence in the Civil Procedure Law "Interpretation" Article 99 The people's court shall determine the time limit for adducing evidence by the parties in the preparatory stage before the court session. The time limit for adducing evidence may be negotiated by the parties and approved by the people's court. The people's court shall set a time limit for presenting evidence. The time limit for presenting evidence in ordinary procedural cases of first instance shall not be less than 15 days, and the time limit for providing new evidence in cases of second instance shall not be less than 10 days. After the expiration of the time limit for adducing evidence, if a party applies for refuting the evidence already provided or correcting the defects in the source and form of the evidence, the people's court may, at its discretion, re-determine the time limit for adducing evidence, without being restricted by the provisions of the preceding paragraph. The Interpretation stipulates that the people's court shall determine that the time limit for adducing evidence in ordinary cases of first instance shall not be less than 15 days, and that in cases of second instance shall not be less than 10 days. It revised the old rules, that is, the time limit for presenting evidence in ordinary cases of first instance shall not be less than 30 days, and there is no limit on the time limit for presenting evidence in cases of second instance. If new evidence is provided, it shall be presented before or during the trial, but the court shall not hold a hearing. At the same time, the interpretation stipulates that while shortening the time limit for giving evidence designated by the court in the pre-trial preparation stage, it also provides the parties with the opportunity to refute or correct the evidence later; It has changed the previous "one size fits all" way-simply stipulating that the time limit for giving evidence designated by the court should not be less than 30 days, which is more in line with the requirements of civil litigation practice. Article 101 of the Interpretation: If a party fails to provide evidence within the time limit, the people's court shall order him to explain the reasons and may require him to provide corresponding evidence when necessary. If one party fails to provide evidence due to objective reasons, or the other party does not raise any objection to the overdue provision of evidence, it shall be deemed as not overdue. Article 102 If a party fails to provide evidence due to intentional or gross negligence, the people's court shall not accept it. However, if the evidence is related to the basic facts of the case, the people's court shall adopt it and admonish it and impose a fine in accordance with the provisions of Article 65 and Article 115, paragraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Law. If the evidence provided by the parties within the time limit is not intentional or grossly negligent, the people's court shall adopt it and admonish the parties. If one party requests the other party to compensate for the additional necessary expenses such as transportation, accommodation, catering, lost work, witness appearing in court, the people's court may support it. Article 65 of the new civil procedure law abandons the rigid rule that "evidence loses its right" and requires the parties to submit evidence in time, supplemented by the judge's free evaluation of evidence, to examine whether the evidence submitted by the parties after the time limit can enter the trial. However, for different situations that may occur in judicial practice, the different ways and attitudes that judges should adopt are not refined, and the degree of specific admonition and the amount of fines are not clear, which may lead to new doubts about the unity and fairness of judicial standards. After the expiration of the time limit for adducing evidence, if a party applies for refuting the evidence already provided or correcting the defects in the source and form of the evidence, the people's court may, at its discretion, re-determine the time limit for adducing evidence, without being restricted by the provisions of the preceding paragraph. If your situation is complicated, the website also provides online consultation service for lawyers, and you are welcome to have legal consultation. Lawyer's recommendation: Shandong lawyer Shaoyang lawyer Quanzhou lawyer Taizhou lawyer
Legal objectivity:
"the Supreme People's Court on the application of