处分权主义和辩论主义不仅是私权自治在现代民事诉讼中的体现,更是抵御有可能来自于法院突袭性裁判的护身符。在现代民事诉讼公平与效率的理念追求下,以释明权为代表的法院职权的适当干预是保障民事诉讼顺利进行的关键。在处分权主义和辩论主义已经在我国法上得以确立的今天,如何妥当形成裁判的基础,做出令人信赖的裁判应成为今后研究的课题。彭宇案一审裁判既违反处分权主义和辩论主义,也未恰当运用职权,在诉讼标的和事实主张层面对当事人构成了突袭性裁判。 Disposalism and debate are not only manifestations of private right autonomy in modern civil litigation, but also protect amulets that may come from the aggressive judgments of the courts. Under the pursuit of the concept of fairness and efficiency in modern civil litigation, proper intervention of court powers represented by the right of interpretation is the key to guarantee the smooth progress of civil litigation. Nowadays, when decentralization and debate have been established in our country’s law, how to form the basis of referee properly and to make a credible referendum should be the subject of future research. In the first instance, Peng Yu violated the dispositional sanction and the debate doctrine, nor did he properly use his power to form a surprise judgment on the litigant’s subject matter and the factual claim.