After the time limit for presenting evidence has expired, whether the litigation claim can be added

It depends

Article 34: Parties shall submit evidentiary materials to the people's court within the time limit for presenting evidence, and where parties do not submit within the time limit for presenting evidence, it is viewed as a waiver of their right to present evidence.

The people's courts do not organize debate of evidence materials submitted by parties within the time limit. However, the other party agrees to cross-examine the evidence.

Where parties add or modify litigation demands or raise counterclaims, they shall submit them before the completion of the time limit for presenting evidence.

Article 35: Where, in the course of litigation, the nature of the legal relationship asserted by the parties or the validity of the civil act is inconsistent with the people's court's determination made on the basis of the facts of the case, the restrictions provided for in article 34 of these Provisions are not to be applied, and the people's court shall inform the parties that they may modify the litigation demands.

Where parties change their litigation demands, the people's court shall designate a new time limit for the presentation of evidence.

In other words, it should generally be submitted before the expiration of the time limit for presenting evidence, but if the nature of the legal relationship or the validity of the civil act asserted by the parties is inconsistent with the determination made by the people's court on the basis of the facts of the case, an exception may be made

Yes, that's what the law says. But it depends on the specific situation, for example, in some cases of personal injury compensation disputes, the plaintiff needs to estimate the amount of compensation so that the court can calculate the litigation costs, and after the appraisal conclusion comes out, the claim can be added according to the conclusion, which is generally raised at the time of **. Generally, in civil cases, the judge will first ask the plaintiff whether there is any change in the claim.

In accordance with the relevant provisions of the Supreme People's Court on evidence in civil proceedings, the addition of litigation claims shall be within the time limit for the presentation of evidence.

Legal provisions are one thing. The first is the operation and the other aspect, and there is no problem in adding new claims in court.

Legal analysis: Where a party changes its litigation claims, the people's court shall re-designate the time limit for presenting evidence. Whether or not to re-designate the time limit for the presentation of evidence in a change claim must be determined by distinguishing its impact on the defense and the burden of proof

If the change increases the burden of defense and proof on the other party, the court should re-designate the time limit for presenting evidence; Otherwise, there would be no longer a fixed period for the production of evidence.

Legal basis: Article 35 of the Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Proceedings? The evaluator shall complete the evaluation within the time limit determined by the people's court and submit an appraisal document.

Where an evaluator fails to submit an appraisal document on time without a legitimate reason, the parties may apply to the people's court to separately retain an evaluator to conduct the evaluation. Where the people's court permits, the evaluation fees already collected by the original evaluator shall be refunded; and where it is refused to be returned, it is to be handled in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2 of article 81 of these Provisions.

The time for adding a claim shall be before the conclusion of the courtroom debate. There are two situations for changing the claim: the first is the change of the way in which the parties require the other party to bear civil liability; The second is when the parties believe that the nature of the legal relationship they assert or the validity of the civil act has changed at the time of filing the lawsuit, and it is necessary to change the litigation claim.

In the course of litigation, parties may propose changes to their claims based on a variety of factors.

Article 232 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Application: Where, after the case is accepted and before the courtroom debate is concluded, the plaintiff adds a claim, the defendant submits a counterclaim, or a third party submits a request for return of litigation related to the case, and the trial may be combined, the people's court shall combine the trials. Where paragraph 2 of article 53 of the "Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Proceedings" exists in the preceding paragraph, and the parties change their litigation claims based on the circumstances of the trial, the people's court shall permit and re-designate the time limit for presenting evidence based on the circumstances of the case.

Legal Analysis:1When the plaintiff adds a claim, whether it is necessary to re-designate the time limit for presenting evidence and replying depends on the specific circumstances of the additional claim.

If the additional claim is based on new facts or evidence, in principle, the defendant should be given a new time limit for presenting evidence and replying, so that he can make the necessary preparations for the new facts or evidence on which the new claim is based, so as to fully exercise his right to argue. If the additional claims are not based on new facts or evidence, but are further clarified or expanded on the basis of existing evidence, it is not always necessary to re-designate the time limit for presenting evidence and replying.

2.During the trial, the parties increased the amount of damages claimed, but did not provide new evidence, but made new clarifications on the method of calculating their damages. This increase in the amount of damages claimed is not a typical increase in the amount of claims, and it is not necessary to re-designate the time limit for proof and defense.

Legal basis: Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China

Article 34: The defendant bears the burden of proof for the administrative act taken, and shall provide evidence of the administrative act and the normative documents on which it is based.

Where the defendant does not provide evidence or fails to provide evidence within the time limit without a legitimate reason, it is deemed that there is no corresponding evidence. However, the administrative act being sued involves the lawful rights and interests of a third party, except where the third party provides evidence.

Article 35: In the course of litigation, defendants and their litigants must not collect evidence from plaintiffs, third parties, and witnesses on their own.

Article 36: Where the defendant has already collected evidence when taking an administrative act, but is unable to provide it due to force majeure or other legitimate reasons, the provision may be extended with the permission of the people's court.

Where the plaintiff or a third party submits reasons or evidence that they did not submit in the administrative disposition procedures, the defendant may supplement the evidence with the permission of the people's court.

The plaintiff's attempt to increase the claim shall be after the case is accepted and before the conclusion of the courtroom debate. According to Article 232 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court of Beihuiqiao on Application, after the case is accepted and before the conclusion of the courtroom debate, the plaintiff adds a claim, the defendant submits a counterclaim, and a third party submits a claim related to the case, and the trial may be combined, the people's court shall do so together. The second paragraph of Article 50 of the "Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Proceedings" stipulates that if a party changes its litigation claim in accordance with the circumstances of the court hearing in the circumstances of the preceding paragraph, the people's court shall allow it and may re-designate the time limit for presenting evidence according to the specific circumstances of the case.

Article 232 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Application: Where, after the case is accepted and before the courtroom debate is concluded, the plaintiff adds a claim, the defendant submits a counterclaim, or a third party submits a claim related to the case, and the trial may be joined, the people's court shall do so for trial. Where paragraph 2 of article 53 of the "Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Proceedings" has the circumstances in the preceding paragraph, and the parties modify their litigation claims based on the circumstances of the court trial, the people's court shall permit and may redesignate the time limit for the presentation of evidence based on the specific circumstances of the case.