In my master's thesis, I describe the regulation of preclusion regarding the submission of new facts and evidence in a civil procedure. In the Code of Civil Procedure, the legislator introduced rules on restricting of providing evidence in order to increase the efficiency of judicial protection and to ensure the economic rationality and to speed up the procedure. The parties and the court shall prepare themselves for the hearing in due time and with due diligence. The parties must collect the procedural material at latest at the first hearing session, and the court have to examine the matter carefully, so it can direct the parties by material process guiding, so they can complete evidence if they have been incomplete. The amendment ZPP-E to the Code of Civil Procedure introduces a preparatory hearing designed to enable an open discussion between the court and the parties about various aspects of the dispute, which makes it clear which facts are controversial between the parties and which evidence is to be provided before the first hearing. The limitation of the right of providing new facts and evidence leads to limitation of the right to be heard. Therefore, the court has to ensure the proper interpretation of the indefinite terms of guilt and delay so that there is no violation of the right to be heard. The preclusions are of exceptional character, which requires that the court interprets the terms of guilt in a sufficiently soft manner, since such an interference with the party's right to be heard is admissible only insofar as the party cannot be accused of negligent conduct and only as long as it contributes to speeding up the procedure.