举证时限制度是一项以证据失权为法律后果来约束当事人行为，从而提升诉讼效率、节约司法资源的民事诉讼制度。立法规定包含了三方面实质内容：举证期限的确定、失权后果及例外情况。随着我国民事审判方式的改革，该制度在我国也经历了较为曲折的发展。2001年《最高人民法院关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》设立了举证时限制度。然而该制度虽然可以提高审判效率，却也面临着司法公正与诉讼效率的冲突，这是举证时限制度受到理论和实务界争议的重要因素。2012年《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》以及2015年《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》对于证据失权使用条件的规定更为具体、精细，从而缓和了审判效率与实体公正之间的矛盾。通过实证分析，笔者发现实务在适用该制度时，出现理由要件适用不当、“与案件基本实有关”要件滥用、出现证明责任倒置情形等问题。其原因在于现行制度难以兼顾程序正义与实体正义、立法规定不尽合理、法官自由裁量权过大及配套制度不健全等。笔者认为，立法应当尽快对举证时限制度本身及其配套制度进行修改完善。通过删除基本事实相关性考量、强化法官释明、建立法官心证公开等措施，使得举证时限制度宽严相济，进而发挥其应有的促进诉讼、提高审判效率之功能，在程序公正与实体正义之间达成最大的平衡。

System of Time Limit for Evidence Producing is a civil procedure system which restricts the parties' behavior by taking the loss of the right of evidence as the legal consequence, so as to improve the litigation efficiency and save judicial resources. The provisions contain three contents: the determination of the time limit, the consequence of loss of right and exceptional circumstances. With the reform of the way of civil trial, the system has experienced a more tortuous development in China. It was put forward in Several Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Evidence in Civil Procedure in 2001. However, the system has encountered the conflict between efficiency and justice. In particular, it takes the loss of the right of proof as the legal consequence, which damages the right of the parties. This is the key reason why the system is controversial. The Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China(2012) and Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Trial Supervision Procedure of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China(2015) have more detailed provisions on the conditions for the use of the system, thus easing the contradiction between litigation promotion and discovery of truth. Through empirical analysis, I found that in practice, there are some problems such as improper application of reason, abuse of “related to the basic facts of the case” elements, and inversion of burden of proof, etc. The reason is that the current system is difficult to take into account the procedural justice and substantive justice, the legislative provisions are not reasonable, the discretion of the judge is too large and the supporting system is not perfect, etc. I think the system and its supporting system should be modified as soon as possible. Through deleting “related to the basic facts of the case” elements, increasing the elements of litigation delay, strengthening the judge clarification, and establishing the disclosure of the judge evaluation, the system should be balanced between leniency and severity, thus exerting its function of promoting litigation and improving trial efficiency and achieving the greatest balance between procedural justice and substantive justice.