Article 174: Abandonment of the complaint
Statutory text (Thai original)
ในกรณีต่อไปนี้ให้ถือว่าโจทก์ได้ทิ้งฟ้อง คือ
(๑) ภายหลังที่ได้เสนอคำฟ้องแล้ว โจทก์เพิกเฉยไม่ร้องขอต่อพนักงานเจ้าหน้าที่เพื่อให้ส่งหมายเรียกให้แก้คดีแก่จำเลย และไม่แจ้งให้ศาลทราบเหตุแห่งการเพิกเฉยเช่นว่านั้นภายในกำหนดเจ็ดวันนับแต่วันยื่นคำฟ้อง
(๒) โจทก์เพิกเฉยไม่ดำเนินคดีภายในเวลาตามที่ศาลเห็นสมควรกำหนดไว้เพื่อการนั้นโดยได้ส่งคำสั่งให้แก่โจทก์โดยชอบแล้ว
English translation
In the following cases the plaintiff shall be deemed to have abandoned the complaint, namely: (1) after having presented the complaint, the plaintiff neglects to request the official to serve the summons to defend the case on the defendant, and does not inform the court of the reason for such neglect, within seven days from the day of filing the complaint; (2) the plaintiff neglects to proceed with the case within the time the court sees fit to fix for that purpose, after the order has been duly served on the plaintiff.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified. Always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 174 defines when a plaintiff is deemed to abandon the complaint, the consequence of which is that the court may strike the case off the cause list. The first ground follows directly from Section 173: if the plaintiff does not request service of the summons, and gives the court no reason, within seven days of filing, abandonment is presumed. The second ground is broader and recurs throughout litigation: a plaintiff who neglects to take a required step within a time the court has fixed, after the order has been duly served, is deemed to abandon the case. Through Sections 246 and 247 the second ground applies at the appeal and dika stages, so failing to pay an appeal or dika fee within an extended deadline can amount to abandonment there too.
Why this matters in practice
Abandonment is one of the easiest ways to lose a case you could have won, so treat every court deadline seriously. In particular, request service of the summons within seven days of filing, and take any step the court orders within the time fixed, since the court can strike the case out once the order has been properly served on you. The same rule reaches appeals and dika, where missing a fee deadline can end the appeal. When a deadline is tight, ask for an extension in time rather than letting it pass, and our guide on going to court in Thailand explains what to expect.
Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section
-
Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 1222/2568 (2025)
Where the court orders a party to serve the notice and copy of its motion within a set time on pain of being treated as abandoning it, and the party neglects to do so, the party is deemed to have abandoned the motion under Section 174 (2).
The trial court had ordered the respondent to serve the notice and copy of its motion for a new trial within seven days, failing which it would be treated as abandoned. When the respondent did not serve them, the court held the motion abandoned under Section 174 (2), read together with Section 68 on service.
-
Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 1399/2567 (2024)
Section 174 (2), read with Section 246, applies to an appellant as it does to a plaintiff. An appellant who neglects to pay the additional appeal court fee in full within the time the trial court fixes is deemed to have abandoned the appeal to that extent.
The defendant appealed against the judgment on the original claim and on its counterclaim, the two being of equal amount, but paid only one filing fee, and its request to extend the time to pay the balance was refused as out of time. The Supreme Court held that the fee paid went to the appeal on the original claim, which was not abandoned, and that the defendant, as appellant, had neglected to pay the additional fee on the counterclaim within the time fixed, so the appeal was abandoned in that part under Section 174 (2) read with Section 246.
-
Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 2811/2565 (2022)
Neglecting to pay the dika fee within the extended time the court fixed is a failure to proceed within the time set, and is treated as abandoning the dika under Section 174 (2) read with Section 247, so that part of the case is struck off the Supreme Court's cause list.
The official receiver of the first defendant did not pay the dika fee on the counterclaim within the extended deadline the trial court had granted. The court held this was a failure to proceed within the fixed time, amounting to abandonment of the dika on the counterclaim under Section 174 (2) read with Section 247, and struck that part off the cause list.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Cited in 291 Supreme Court decisions (1950 to 2025)
Décisions de citation sélectionnées
- Décision 1222/2568 (2025)
- Decision 4009/2567 (2024)
- Décision 2811/2565 (2022)
- Decision 101/2564 (2021)
- Decision 3868-3869/2563 (2020)
- Décision 2064/2562 (2019)
- Decision 124/2562 (2019)
- Decision 212/2561 (2018)
Cette liste est sélectionnée automatiquement, en privilégiant les jugements qui reposent sur cet article plutôt que sur ceux qui se contentent de le citer lors du prononcé de la peine. Elle n'a pas encore été examinée par le cabinet.
Le plus souvent cité aux côtés de
- Article 246 116
- Article 247 65
- Article 132 60
- Article 70 23
- Art. 15 du Code de procédure pénale thaïlandais 15
- Section 1 12
Sections qui apparaissent le plus souvent dans les mêmes jugements que celui-ci. Le chiffre correspond au nombre de décisions.
Calculé sur l'ensemble du corpus de 83 652 décisions de la Cour suprême du cabinet, de 1921 à 2026. Le décompte est exhaustif ; la plage d'années indiquée élimine les valeurs aberrantes rares afin de refléter la répartition réelle des citations. Ces chiffres sont calculés par nos soins et ne constituent pas des statistiques officielles de la Cour. Comment nous les comptons et ce que nous avons mesuré
Foire aux questions
Quand un plaignant est-il considéré comme ayant abandonné l'affaire ?
En vertu de l'article 174, un demandeur abandonne l'affaire s'il omet, dans les sept jours, de demander la signification de la citation et d'expliquer le retard, ou s'il néglige de procéder dans le délai fixé par le tribunal après que l'ordonnance a été dûment signifiée.
Le non-respect du délai de paiement des frais d'appel peut-il être considéré comme un abandon de procédure ?
Oui. Par le biais des articles 246 et 247, le deuxième motif de l'article 174 s'applique à l'appel et à la dika, donc le fait de ne pas payer les frais d'appel ou de dika dans le délai imparti peut être considéré comme un abandon de l'appel.
Guides connexes sur ThaiLawOnline
Citer cette section
-
Citation simple
Civil Procedure Code, s. 174 (Thailand) -
Citation académique
Civil Procedure Code (Thailand), s. 174. ThaiLawOnline, https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-civil-procedure-code/section-174/ (accessed 1 septembre 2026). -
Citation thaïlandaise
ป.วิ.พ. มาตรา 174 -
Lien permanent
https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-civil-procedure-code/section-174/ -
Intégrer sur votre site
<blockquote cite="https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-civil-procedure-code/section-174/"><p>In the following cases the plaintiff shall be deemed to have abandoned the complaint, namely: (1) after having presented the complaint, the plaintiff neglects to request the official to serve the summons to defend the case on the defendant, and does not inform the court…</p><footer>Civil Procedure Code, s. 174 (Thailand): <a href="https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-civil-procedure-code/section-174/">ThaiLawOnline</a></footer></blockquote>
The Thai text is authoritative. The English is an unofficial translation by ThaiLawOnline, free to reuse with attribution.