Article 203: No appeal against strike-out; refiling
Statutory text (Thai original)
ห้ามมิให้โจทก์อุทธรณ์คำสั่งจำหน่ายคดีตามมาตรา ๒๐๑ และมาตรา ๒๐๒ แต่ภายใต้บังคับบทบัญญัติแห่งกฎหมายว่าด้วยอายุความ คำสั่งเช่นว่านี้ไม่ตัดสิทธิโจทก์ที่จะเสนอคำฟ้องของตนใหม่
English translation
The plaintiff is prohibited from appealing against an order striking out the case under Section 201 and Section 202. However, subject to the provisions of the law on prescription, such an order does not deprive the plaintiff of the right to submit the plaint anew.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified. Always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 203 completes the default framework of Sections 201 and 202 by closing off the appeal route while leaving the door open to a fresh action. It reflects a policy choice: rather than litigate over the strike-out order, the plaintiff who wishes to continue must simply sue again. The critical qualifier is the phrase subject to the law on prescription. Read with Civil and Commercial Code Section 193/17, the Supreme Court treats a strike-out for the plaintiff's default like an abandonment, so the original filing is deemed never to have interrupted prescription and the fresh action must fall within the ordinary limitation period counted as if no earlier suit existed.
Why this matters in practice
The trap in Section 203 is prescription. Because the earlier suit is treated as never having interrupted the limitation clock, a plaintiff who let a case be struck out may find the refiled claim time-barred even though the first action was filed on time. For debt claims especially, verify the remaining limitation period before relying on the right to refile, and move quickly. See our debt collection service if you need to reassert a money claim after a strike-out.
Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section
-
Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 6751/2561 (2018)
A strike-out for the plaintiff's default of appearance under Section 202 results from the plaintiff abandoning its own case, so under Civil and Commercial Code section 193/17 paragraph one prescription is deemed never to have been interrupted by that suit and the plaintiff gets no benefit under section 193/14 (2). Section 203 leaves the right to sue again intact, and where prescription ran out while the first case was pending the plaintiff may bring the fresh claim within sixty days from the day the strike-out order became final, under section 193/17 paragraph two.
The debtor argued that the creditor's admitted claim was time-barred because the creditor's first action had been struck out for default of appearance. Sitting in plenary session (15/2561), the Supreme Court agreed that the strike-out meant prescription was deemed never to have been interrupted, but held the claim was not time-barred: the creditor had sued again on 11 December 2550, within sixty days from the day the strike-out order became final, as Civil and Commercial Code section 193/17 paragraph two allows.
-
Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 1609/2560 (2017)
Although Section 203 does not by its terms forbid a request for a retrial, a plaintiff can only seek a retrial where an ex parte trial has been held; once the case is struck out for the plaintiff's default, the sole remedy is to refile within the limitation period.
After the case was struck out for the plaintiff's default under Section 202, the Supreme Court explained that no ex parte trial had taken place, so a retrial could not be requested; under Section 203 the plaintiff's only route was to file a fresh action in time.
-
Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 9922/2558 (2015)
Where a case is struck out because the plaintiff defaulted of appearance, prescription is deemed never to have been interrupted; although Section 203 leaves the plaintiff free to refile, the new action must still be brought within the limitation period.
The plaintiff's earlier civil case had been struck out for default. Counting from when that case became final to the date of the new suit, more than ten years had passed. The Supreme Court held that under Section 203 the refiled claim was barred by prescription and upheld dismissal.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Cited in 8 Supreme Court decisions (1969 to 2018)
Décisions de citation sélectionnées
- Decision 1609/2560 (2017)
- Decision 9922/2558 (2015)
- Decision 2509/2551 (2008)
- Decision 1645/2549 (2006)
- Decision 1632/2532 (1989)
- Decision 821/2522 (1979)
- Decision 6751/2561 (2018)
- Decision 1899/2512 (1969)
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
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
Puis-je faire appel si mon affaire est rejetée pour défaut de paiement ?
Non. L'article 203 interdit tout appel contre une ordonnance de radiation rendue en vertu de l'article 201 ou de l'article 202. Le recours consiste à déposer une nouvelle demande plutôt qu'à interjeter appel.
Existe-t-il un délai pour déposer une nouvelle demande après un rejet ?
Le droit de réintroduire une action est soumis aux règles de prescription. La première action étant réputée n'avoir jamais été prescrite, la nouvelle action doit être intentée dans le délai de prescription ordinaire ; une réintroduction tardive peut donc être irrecevable pour cause de prescription.
Guides connexes sur ThaiLawOnline
Citer cette section
-
Citation simple
Civil Procedure Code, s. 203 (Thailand) -
Citation académique
Civil Procedure Code (Thailand), s. 203. ThaiLawOnline, https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-civil-procedure-code/section-203/ (accessed 1 septembre 2026). -
Citation thaïlandaise
ป.วิ.พ. มาตรา 203 -
Lien permanent
https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-civil-procedure-code/section-203/ -
Intégrer sur votre site
<blockquote cite="https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-civil-procedure-code/section-203/"><p>Il est interdit au demandeur d'interjeter appel d'une ordonnance de radiation de l'affaire en vertu des articles 201 et 202. Cependant, sous réserve des dispositions de la loi sur la prescription, une telle ordonnance ne prive pas le demandeur du droit de soumettre à nouveau la plainte.</p><footer>Civil Procedure Code, s. 203 (Thailand): <a href="https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-civil-procedure-code/section-203/">ThaiLawOnline</a></footer></blockquote>
The Thai text is authoritative. The English is an unofficial translation by ThaiLawOnline, free to reuse with attribution.