Notice!This behavior may be punished by judicial!

Introduction to the case

Gaoli Company went to the court to say that the blessing company did not pay the rent on time and demanded the cancellation of the lease contract. Blessing Company argued that Gaoli Company's defaults were the first. If the contract was to be lifted, Gaoli Company should compensate the losses such as the decoration of the house, and filed a counterclaim for this.

During the trial of the first instance, the blessing company applied for a cost appraisal of the residual value of the house. After receiving the notice of paying the appraisal agency twice, the blessing company did not pay the appraisal fee in time. The appraisal agency returned to the commissioned case.

✎ court trial

The court of first instance was tried to lift the lease contract. The blessing company paid the rent and retreated the house, and rejected the counter -prosecution request of the blessing company.

The blessing company did not accept the verdict to appeal to the court of second instance, and applied for a cost appraisal of the residual value of the house during the trial of the second instance, and was willing to pay the appraisal fee in advance.

The court of the second instance believed that the cost appraisal of the residual value of the house decoration is an important evidence to determine the blessing company's counterclaim that the house decoration loss is related to the facts of the case. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct cost appraisal of the residual value of house decoration. Therefore, the first trial judgment was ruled and the case was returned to the court of first instance.

The court of second instance also believes that the above -mentioned behavior of Blessing Company disrupted the order of the trial of the first and second instance courts, causing serious waste of judicial resources, and also harming the other party's legitimate rights and interests of the house. The court of the second instance decided to fined a fine of 50,000 yuan in a blessing company; at the same time, the blessing company required a blessing company to pay a certain amount of appraisal deposit to ensure that the case was successfully entrusted to identify it after returning the case, and it could be returned after applying for the appraisal of the first instance court.

The blessing company did not accept a fine decision to apply for reconsideration from the Jiangsu Higher People's Court. The Jiangsu Higher People's Court rejected the application for reconsideration of the blessing company and maintained the original decision.

✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎

Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (Amended in 2021)

Article 68 The parties shall provide evidence in a timely manner for their claims.

The people's court determines the evidence and period that the parties should provide according to the claims of the parties and the trial of the case. If the parties are difficult to provide evidence within this period, they may apply to the people's court for extension period, and the people's courts are appropriately extended according to the party's application. If the parties provide evidence overdue, the people's court shall order it to explain the reason; if the reason or the reason is not established, the people's court may not accept the evidence according to different circumstances, or the evidence is admitted but imposed and fine.

Judge said

When the blessing company did not accept the application for the fine decision, the first instance did not identify that the first instance should be deemed to be the right to give up the proof. The abandoned behavior did not harm the interests of the other party and did not disrupt the court's trial order.

Now that the blessing company has raised a counterclaim and asked the other party to compensate for the losses of the house decoration, it should be provided to provide evidence to provide evidence that this is the right to proof of the blessing company; however, the proof of the proof period is also the obligation of the parties.

In the absence of a blessing company, the decoration loss claimed was one of the facts that the court must find out. The blessing company has not paid the appraisal fee is not the right to give up the blessing company. The behavior of the blessing company that leads to the fact that the case of the decoration loss part should be checked by the trial of the first and second trials. It is not clear that it is not clear. It is necessary to send it back to the first instance court for trial again, which has caused a lot of duplicate work. Trial resources.

In civil litigation activities, common obstacles such as false statements, abuse of jurisdictions and overdue proofs, etc., such behaviors are typical dishonesty litigation behaviors, which will seriously damage the court's identification of the facts of the case and affect the proceedings of litigation procedures. Promoting should be included in the category of judicial punishment and seriously dealt with.

Honesty and trustworthy is the traditional virtue of the Chinese nation and the fundamental requirement of the core values ​​of socialism. To ensure the legitimate rights and interests of the parties in the lawsuit, safeguard the judicial order, and help the construction of a good social credit system, we must severely crack down on dishonesty litigation and purify the rule of law environment.

Source: Lianyungang Intermediate People's Court

Author: Wu Xueying

Click to see you the best look

- END -