Article 176 — Effect of withdrawal or abandonment
Texte légal (original thaï)
การทิ้งคำฟ้องหรือถอนคำฟ้องย่อมลบล้างผลแห่งการยื่นคำฟ้องนั้น รวมทั้งกระบวนพิจารณาอื่น ๆ อันมีมาต่อภายหลังยื่นคำฟ้อง และกระทำให้คู่ความกลับคืนเข้าสู่ฐานะเดิมเสมือนหนึ่งมิได้มีการยื่นฟ้องเลย แต่ว่าคำฟ้องใด ๆ ที่ได้ทิ้งหรือถอนแล้ว อาจยื่นใหม่ได้ ภายใต้บังคับแห่งบทบัญญัติของกฎหมายว่าด้วยอายุความ
traduction anglaise
Abandonment of the complaint or withdrawal of the complaint extinguishes the effect of filing that complaint, together with the other proceedings that followed the filing, and restores the parties to their former position as though the complaint had never been filed. However, any complaint that has been abandoned or withdrawn may be filed anew, subject to the provisions of the law on prescription.
Cette traduction anglaise est fournie à titre indicatif uniquement et n'a pas encore été vérifiée de manière définitive ; référez-vous toujours à l'original thaï.
Annotation de l'entreprise
Section 176 states the legal effect of the withdrawal or abandonment addressed in Sections 174 and 175. It has two limbs. First, the filing and everything built on it are wiped out and the parties return to their pre-suit position. Second, the same claim may be refiled, but only within the limitation period fixed by the substantive law. A key consequence, confirmed repeatedly by the courts, is that withdrawal is not a release of the debt under the Civil and Commercial Code, so co-debtors and sureties are not discharged. The section applies by analogy in consumer cases and, together with the Criminal Procedure Code, in civil claims connected to a criminal matter.
Pourquoi cela est important en pratique
The most important practical point is that withdrawing against one defendant does not release the others. A plaintiff who withdraws against a paying debtor keeps the right to pursue co-debtors and sureties, because withdrawal only erases the lawsuit, not the underlying debt. But do not treat refiling as unlimited: the fresh suit must still fall inside the prescription period, so watch the clock before you drop a case you may want to bring again.
Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 2240/2568 (2025)
Withdrawing a complaint against a debtor is not a release of the debt. Under Section 176, read with Section 7 of the Consumer Case Procedure Act, the plaintiff may refile subject to prescription, so a joint surety is not discharged by the withdrawal.
The plaintiff withdrew against the fourth defendant after a partial settlement. The Court held this was not a debt release under the Civil and Commercial Code, because Section 176 lets the claim be refiled, so the fifth defendant as joint surety remained bound.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 2416/2561 (2018)
Because Section 176 provides that a withdrawn complaint may be filed anew, withdrawal does not extinguish the debt and is not a release. Joint tortfeasors and joint debtors are therefore not discharged when the plaintiff withdraws against another defendant.
The second and third defendants argued that withdrawing against joint debtors amounted to a debt release benefiting them. The Court rejected this, holding that under Section 176 refiling is possible, so withdrawal does not extinguish the debt.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 8722/2561 (2018)
Where a criminal complaint is withdrawn, Section 176 read with Section 15 of the Criminal Procedure Code restores the parties as though no criminal charge had been brought, leaving no criminal case pending. The victim's connected civil claim is then governed by the applicable prescription rules.
After earlier criminal charges for trespass and property damage were withdrawn, the Court treated the criminal matter as never filed, so the plaintiff's civil claim connected to the criminal act was assessed under the relevant limitation rules.
Décisions sélectionnées avec numéros de dossier vérifiés dans la base de données de la Cour suprême. Les versions anglaises sont des traductions éditoriales réalisées par le cabinet à des fins d'étude.
Foire aux questions
Can I sue again after withdrawing a case in Thailand?
Yes. Section 176 treats the withdrawn case as never filed and allows a fresh complaint, but only if the prescription period for the claim has not yet run out.
Does withdrawing against one debtor release co-debtors or guarantors?
No. Courts hold that withdrawal is not a release of the debt, so co-debtors and sureties remain liable. Withdrawal only cancels the lawsuit, not the obligation itself.
What does 'restored to the former position' mean?
It means the filing and all steps taken after it are erased, as if no complaint was ever lodged. The parties stand where they did before the suit began.