S Prepare The Merger Of The Complaint

The restrictions on requirements to commence an action prescribed by Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China are quiet strict, especially on the claims. According to the concerned provisions, plaintiffs shall state"detailed claims". The immediate result is that plaintiffs can only choose one right of claim to comment an action when there are more than one such rights. This provision provides insufficient protection to the parties'rights and interests because it deprives the parties of some rights of claim, leads to impossibility for some rights of claim to enter into the procedure. So it is necessary that civil procedure law provides effective ways for the parties to ensure all the substantial claims have chance to enter into litigation via due process.With consideration said above, Germany, Japan, and Taiwan province of China adopted joinder of preliminary action in practice in addition to comprehensive proof and study in theory to solve said problem. It's a pity that there is little discussion and study in Chinese academic circles.In ways of comparative and theoretical analysis, the author studies concerned foreign legal precedents and theories, and Chinese practice status. On the basis of this, the author advocates that the system of joinder of preliminary action shall be adopted in China. Besides, the author put forward some framework suggestions on system regulation.This essay is composed of four chapters:The first chapter is brief introduction to concept of joinder of preliminary action, and importance and significance to set such system;The second chapter is analysis of types, and essentials of joinder of preliminary action, and relations between the prior action and subsequent action;The third chapter is comparative study on foreign theories and legal precedents, and summary of common grounds and differences which can be treated as example of Chinese legislation;The fourth chapter is some suggestions on action commencement, costs of action, trial and judgment in first and second instances. These procedural suggestions are provided in the view of practice.In the concluding remarks, the author states that in the trend of trial form reform, joinder of preliminary action shall not be adopted in the legislation because of weak theoretical foundation. However, practical experiments of such system are feasible and can provide real cases for further theoretical study. Based on more practices and theoretical studies, this system can at last be prescribed in statutes.