The Supreme Judicial Court issues the time limit of standardizing the civil action to put of the notice to the proof

The Supreme Judicial Court issues the time limit of standardizing the civil action to put of the notice to the proof
The Supreme Judicial Court issues the time limit of standardizing the civil action to put of the notice to the proof
National local people's court, military court, every railway transportation intermediate court and grass-roots court, all maritime affairs court at all levels at all levels, the courts at all levels of formation of production and construction of Xinjiang: <>(hereafter referred to as " evidence regulation ") Since implementing on April 1, 2002, for guiding and standardizing the trial procedure of the people's court, improve the lawsuit party's evidence consciousness, promote the civil trial procedure to launch justly in an orderly manner, play a positive role. But with the appearances of the new situation, new problem, some places are to the specific clause in " evidence regulation ", especially can't understand unifiedly about the regulation which puts the time limit to the proof. In order to ensure the sufficient enforcement of party's lawsuit right conscientiously, ensure the people's court to administer justice just and high-efficiently, covered by now " the the intersection of evidence and regulation " put the intersection of time limit and the intersection of person who stipulate and relevant questions to the proof, notify as follows: First, question of putting time limit to the proof regarding the third paragraph of article 33 stipulate. " the the intersection of evidence and regulation " whom the third paragraph of article 33 stipulate put time limit to the proof, mean when applicable to the ordinary procedure of first instance and hear the civil case, it proves the time limit of its basic fact advocated that the people's court appoints parties to produce evidence, this time limit is no less than 30 days. But the people's court is after requesting for agreement to both parties, it can be in order that less than 30 days that the ones that appoint put time limit to the proof. The aforesaid fixed one is directed against a certain particular fact or particular evidence or because of the particular reason after putting the expiration of time limit to the proof, the people's court can appoint producing evidence or time limit of counterevidence of parties according to the circumstances according to the detailed conditions of the case, this time limit does not receive " No less than 30 days " Restriction. Second, question of putting time limit to the proof regarding applicable to the summary procedure and hear a case. Applicable to case that summary procedure hear, whom people's court appoint put time limit to the proof, limit the intersection of " evidence regulation " and whom the third paragraph of article 33 stipulate, but Israel is less than 30 days. The summary procedure is transferred to an ordinary procedure and tried, what the people's court appointed puts time limit less than 30 days to the proof, people's court should fill less than 30 days to put time limit to the proofly for party. But after requesting for agreement to party, it can be in order that less than 30 days that what the people's court appoints puts time limit to the proof. Third, question of putting time limit to the proof regarding the party put forward after the jurisdiction objection. The party replies to propose jurisdiction objection in first instance during this period, the people's court should be after rejecting the adjudication of party's jurisdiction objection and coming into force, according to the intersection of " the the intersection of evidence and regulation " and regulation of the third paragraph of article 33, appoint less than 30 days to put time limit to the proofly again. But after not requesting for agreement to party, people's court can appoint less than 30 days to put time limit to the proof. Fourth, about investigating to the people's court the evidence collected puts forward putting the time limit question to the proof of opposite evidence in accordance with the functions and powers. After the people's court shows in the court's trial according to the evidence that the 15th investigation of " evidence regulation " collects, the party demands to be offering opposite evidence, the people's court can confirm corresponding putting time limit to the proof according to the circumstances. Fifth, about putting the time limit question to the proof while increasing parties. The people's court participated in the third person adding extra parties or having the right to ask independently the situation of the lawsuit, should accord with the regulation of the third paragraph of article 33 of " evidence regulation ", appoint to put time limit to the proof for the new party participating in lawsuit. It's time to put time limit to the proof and suitable for other parties. Sixth, question regarding the party applies to lengthen and put time limit to the proof. The party applies to lengthen and put time limit to the proof permitted by the people's court, it is the equal lawsuit right which protects both parties, the ones that lengthened put time limit to the proof and suitable for other parties. Seventh, about increasing, alteration claims and putting to the proof on time limiting while bringing a counter-action issue. The party puts increasing, alteration claims or bringing a counter-action in time limit to the proof in first instance, or the people's court can tell parties after altering the claims in accordance with article 35 of " evidence regulation ", party's alteration claims, the people's court should appoint to put time limit to the proof again according to the detailed conditions of the case. The party has an appointed one on putting time limit to the proof, deal with according to the regulation of the second paragraph of article 33 of " evidence regulation ". Eighth, question regarding the evidence with new second instance puts time limit to the proof. In the people's court of the second instance tries, the party applied to offer new evidence, whom people's court appoint put time limit to the proof, does not " no less than 30 day " Restriction. Ninth, about sending back and rehearing the case and putting the time limit question to the proof. Send back the case reheared, the people's court of the first instance can combine the detailed conditions of the case and send back situation of reason,etc. reheared while hearing again, confirm that puts time limit to the proof according to the circumstances. If the case violates the due course of law sent back to rehearing, the people's court is after soliciting the party's opinion, can no longer appoint to put time limit to the proof or appoint to put time limit to the proof according to the circumstances. But because the case omits parties and is sent back to rehearing, deal with according to article 5 of this notice. If the case asserts the fact is unclear, is lack of evidence and send back rehearing, the people's court can require parties to consult and confirm that put time limit to the proof, or appoint to put time limit to the proof according to the circumstances. The aforesaid put time limit to the proof and does not receive " No less than 30 days " Restriction. Tenth, about asserting the question of new evidence. People's court to " The new evidence " ,Should accord with the regulations of article 41, article 42, article 43, article 44 of " evidence regulation ", combine the following factors to assert synthetically: (1) Whether the evidence is already objective reality in putting time limit or other time limits when article 41, article 44 of " evidence regulation " stipulated to the proof; (2) The party has not produced evidence in putting time limit or other time limits when the judicial explanation stipulates to the proof, whether the situation of the intentional or culpable negligence exists. The Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China December 11 of two or eight years


|