Article 132: Striking a case from the docket

Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section

1. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 4043/2567 (2024)

   Applying to be appointed an estate administrator, and objecting to such an application, are matters personal to each heir or interested person, so the heirs of a deceased applicant cannot take that applicant's place. Where the applicant dies and there is no longer any purpose in considering the appeal, the court strikes that applicant's case from its docket under section 132(3) and refunds the filing fee paid at its own level.

   Applying to be appointed an estate administrator, and objecting to such an application, are matters personal to each heir or interested person, so the heirs of applicant 1 could not take her place and their motion was dismissed. As applicant 1 had died, there was no longer any purpose in considering her appeal to the Supreme Court, which ordered her case struck from the Supreme Court's docket under section 132(3) and the whole of the Supreme Court filing fee refunded to her heirs or the administrator of her estate.

2. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 8040/2556 (2013)

   Where a spouse dies while the case is before the Supreme Court, the marriage ends by death, so there is no longer any purpose in deciding whether the other spouse's conduct was a ground for divorce. Compensation under Civil and Commercial Code section 1525 can be claimed only where the court gives judgment for divorce, and the marital property must be divided as at the death under section 1625; the case is accordingly struck from the docket under section 132(3), with the Supreme Court filing fee refunded.

   While the case was before the Supreme Court the plaintiff died, so the marriage ended by his death. The Court held it therefore no longer needed to decide the defendant's appeal on whether her conduct gave the plaintiff a ground for divorce, since the answer could not change the effect of the marriage. As to the compensation the lower courts had ordered, since no divorce was decreed the plaintiff could not claim it, because Civil and Commercial Code section 1525 allows compensation only where the court gives judgment for divorce; and the marital property had to be divided between the deceased and the surviving spouse as at the ending of the marriage by death under section 1625. There was accordingly no purpose in deciding the claim, and the case was struck from the docket under section 132(3), with the whole of the Supreme Court filing fee refunded to the defendant.

3. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 8944/2559 (2016)

   Where the receiver appointed on an absolute receivership order against some defendants asks for the case against them to be struck off so that the plaintiff may lodge a proof of debt, the strike-off is made under the closing words of section 25 of the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 and is not intended to dispose of the case finally. It is therefore not a strike-off under section 132, and if the bankruptcy petition is later dismissed the plaintiff may simply resume the same case and need not sue those defendants afresh within the limitation period. Nor need the court hold an inquiry before restoring the case, where the objecting parties have been heard on a motion to set the restoration aside and have raised only a point of law the court can decide for itself.

   A bank sued four defendants in 2001. During the trial the Central Bankruptcy Court made an absolute receivership order against the first to third defendants, and their receiver applied to have the case against them struck off so the bank could lodge a proof of debt. In 2006, after the Supreme Court dismissed the bankruptcy petition against them, the bank applied to restore the case and the first court did so. The Supreme Court held the strike-off had been made under the closing words of section 25 of the Bankruptcy Act, not under section 132, and had never been intended to dispose of the case finally, so the bank could resume it and did not have to sue those defendants afresh within the limitation period. It also held that no inquiry was needed before restoring the case: the second and third defendants had moved to set the restoration aside, the court had considered that motion, and their only ground was a point of law the court could decide for itself.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.