A regular consequence of missing deadlines or oral hearings is the preclusion of rights - the loss of the right to take procedural action. The legislator tries to sanction the act of omission in civil proceedings with preclusion rules. However, if the party was justifiably unable to take the intended procedural action, the preclusion provisions would be considered strict and unfair. The institute of the reversion to the previous state tries to eliminate the negative consequences of the omission in the case of a justified omission. The reversion to the previous state of affairs is a legal remedy that enables the party, who missed the oral hearing or a deadline for taking the procedural action because of the justifiable reasons, on its proposal, to subsequently take that action by returning the litigation to the status before the omission and by annulling all of the decisions made by the court due to omission. In each case the court evaluates the justification of the reasons considering all the relevant circumstances. In practice, the judicial evaluation of the justification of the reasons for allowing the reversion to the previous state is arguable. The reason for this is, among other things, the practical unavailability of the court of revision in these matters, which makes it impossible to obtain relevant precedents that could be a more stable guide for the uniformity of judicial practice. Caution is needed in its application so that the mentioned institute does not turn into an instrument for the abuse of procedural authorizations for evasive and dilatory purposes. In addition to the main characteristics of the reversion of litigation to the previous state, the graduation thesis also discusses the difference between the mentioned institute and legal remedies.