证据制度是民事诉讼制度的重要组成部分，证据是还原案件事实进而实现民事诉讼定纷止争、解决纠纷目的的主要依据。证据的发现、搜集、提出及最终认定等每一个环节对案件的事实认定均起着重要作用，并可能决定整个民事诉讼程序的最终走向。证据的提出时间及逾期提出的法律后果与司法效率密切相关，且可能产生司法效率与司法公正间的冲突。规定证据提出时间的举证时限制度，在我国民事诉讼制度的发展史上经历了从无到有的转变，逾期举证的法律后果也经历了多次变化。 2015年开始施行的《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国民事诉讼法〉的解释》（以下简称“《解释》”）对逾期举证的法律后果做了最新的规定。通过对2015年《解释》施行后两年内上网的基层法院处理逾期举证的裁判文书进行搜集分析，设置一定的分类标准对基层法院关于逾期举证行为的处理依据进行分类并与现行立法的相关规定进行比对，发现目前基层法院的处理存在如下问题：1、基层法院在处理当事人逾期举证行为时，存在逾期证据的采纳标准不统一的情况；2、在法院对逾期证据接受后，大部分情况下对逾期举证的当事人是没有处罚措施的；即使在有处罚措施时亦存在处罚依据不明的情况，从裁判文书中无法看出逾期情节与法律后果的相称性；3、《解释》中做出了关于救济非逾期一方当事人的最新规定，可要求赔偿因对方逾期举证造成的额外费用，然而目前司法实践中案例较少，且缺乏明确的主张路径；4、在法院对逾期举证进行处理时，裁判文书的指向性不强，常将逾期情节与证据认定的其他情节混为一谈，难以体现规制逾期举证的作用；5、法院在对逾期证据进行处理时，对证据进行实质性判断处理时缺乏具体的理由说明过程。 总结现行司法处理存在的问题后，通过文献分析的方法对逾期举证制度背后所涉法理进行分析研究。从证明妨碍的构成与规制目标、证据失权的适用路径、全面认识发现真实理念等法理层面对逾期举证行为进行全面分析，总结出现行司法处理中存在上述问题的法理层面原因和改进方向。提出应从立法、司法上统一处理标准并在裁判文书中对逾期举证的裁判理由予以充分说明两个角度进行具体改进，以求逾期举证相关法律制度的完善以及相应制度在司法实践中得到更加规范的运行。

Evidence system is an important part of civil lawsuit system and is the main basis for reducing the facts of the case and realizing the purpose of settling disputes and resolving the dispute. Collection, submission and final determination of the evidence all play an important role in determining the facts of the case, and may determine the final trend of the whole civil procedure. The time of adducing evidence and the legal consequences of overdue are closely related to the judicial efficiency, and may produce the conflict between judicial efficiency and judicial justice. The time limit system of proof which stipulates the time of adducing evidence has undergone a change from scratch in the history of China's civil lawsuit system, and the legal consequences of overdue evidence have undergone many changes. 2015 The "interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China" (hereinafter referred to as "interpretation") has made the latest provisions on the legal consequences of overdue evidence. This article collects and analyzes the judgment documents of overdue evidence in the grass-roots courts after the implementation of the interpretation of the 2015 year. And the author sets certain classification standards to classify the treatment basis of the overdue evidence by the grassroots courts. By comparison with the relevant provisions of the current legislation, it is found that the treatment of the grassroots courts at present has the following problems: 1．There is a situation that the standard of adopting overdue evidence is not uniform when the basic court deal with the overdue acts of the parties. 2．There is no punishment of the litigant of the overdue proof in most of the cases after accepting the overdue evidence. Even if there is a punishment, there are cases where the punishment is unclear. It is impossible to see the proportionality between the overdue plot and the legal consequence in the judicial documents. 3．There are latest provisions on the relief of non-late party in interpretation. They may seek compensation for overdue costs. But at present, there are fewer cases. And it lacks the clear proposition path. 4．When the court to deal with the overdue evidence, the judgement documents are lack of directivity. The judge often conflated overdue details of a case with the the other details of a case. So it is difficult to reflect the role of regulatory overdue proof. 5．There is a lack of concrete reasoning process when dealing with the substantive judgment of evidence. After summarizing the existing problems in the present judicature, this paper analyzes the legal principles behind the overdue evidence system through the method of literature analysis. We can analyzes the legal principle of overdue evidence from the following aspects: the constitution and regulation goal theory of the spoliation of evidence, the applicable path of the loss of evidence, and the comprehensive understanding of discovering reality. This paper sums up the legal reasons and the improvement direction of the above-mentioned problems in the present judicial treatment. The author puts forward the concrete improvement from two points of view, that is, to unify the standards in legislation and judicature and to fully explain the reasons for the overdue evidence in the judicial documents. We want to improve the relevant legal system of the overdue proof and make the corresponding system in the judicial practice more standardized operation.