Article 39 — Stay to await another decision
Texte légal (original thaï)
ถ้าการที่จะชี้ขาดตัดสินคดีเรื่องใดที่ค้างพิจารณาอยู่ในศาลใดจำต้องอาศัยทั้งหมดหรือแต่บางส่วนซึ่งคำชี้ขาดตัดสินบางข้อที่ศาลนั้นเองหรือศาลอื่นจะต้องกระทำเสียก่อน หรือจำต้องรอให้เจ้าพนักงานฝ่ายธุรการวินิจฉัยชี้ขาดในข้อเช่นนั้นเสียก่อน หรือถ้าปรากฏว่าได้มีการกระทำผิดอาญาเกิดขึ้นซึ่งอาจมีการฟ้องร้องอันอาจกระทำให้การชี้ขาดตัดสินคดีที่พิจารณาอยู่นั้นเปลี่ยนแปลงไป หรือในกรณีอื่นใดซึ่งศาลเห็นว่าถ้าได้เลื่อนการพิจารณาไปจักทำให้ความยุติธรรมดำเนินไปด้วยดี เมื่อศาลเห็นสมควรหรือเมื่อคู่ความที่เกี่ยวข้องร้องขอ ศาลจะมีคำสั่งเลื่อนการนั่งพิจารณาต่อไปจนกว่าจะได้มีการพิพากษาหรือชี้ขาดในข้อนั้น ๆ แล้วหรือภายในระยะเวลาใด ๆ ตามที่ศาลเห็นสมควรก็ได้ถ้าศาลมีคำสั่งให้เลื่อนการนั่งพิจารณาดังกล่าวแล้วโดยไม่มีกำหนด เมื่อศาลเห็นสมควรหรือคู่ความที่เกี่ยวข้องร้องขอ ศาลจะมีคำสั่งให้เริ่มการนั่งพิจารณาต่อไปในวันใด ๆ ตามที่เห็นสมควรก็ได้
traduction anglaise
If the adjudication of a case pending before a court must depend, wholly or in part, upon the decision of certain points which that court itself or another court must first render, or must await the determination of such points by an administrative official, or if it appears that a criminal offence has been committed which may be prosecuted and which may cause the adjudication of the case under consideration to be altered, or in any other case in which the court is of the opinion that a postponement of the proceedings would further the proper administration of justice, then, when the court thinks fit or upon the application of a party concerned, the court may order the hearing to be postponed until judgment or a decision has been given upon such points, or for any period as the court thinks fit. If the court has ordered such a postponement of the hearing for an indefinite period, then, when the court thinks fit or upon the application of a party concerned, the court may order the hearing to be resumed on any day as it thinks fit.
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 39 empowers the court to stay a hearing where the outcome of the case genuinely turns on a preliminary point that must first be decided elsewhere: by the same court, another court, an administrative official, or through a possible criminal prosecution whose result could change the civil outcome. It also contains a residual ground allowing a stay in any other situation where postponement would serve the proper administration of justice, and it permits an indefinite stay that can later be lifted on a fixed date. The power is discretionary, not mandatory, so a court is never obliged to await the result of every related matter. It sits alongside the party-driven postponement rules in sections 40 and 41 and is frequently invoked together with special-procedure statutes such as bankruptcy and business reorganisation law.
Pourquoi cela est important en pratique
If your civil case overlaps with another lawsuit, a criminal complaint, or a pending administrative ruling, you can ask the court to stay proceedings under section 39 so you are not bound by an inconsistent early decision. Remember the stay is discretionary: you must show that awaiting the other result genuinely serves justice, and the court can refuse and press on. A refusal to stay is a discretionary case management decision that is often hard to challenge on appeal, so frame your request carefully with a lawyer's help. If your dispute could also be resolved outside court, consider mediation or arbitration to avoid parallel proceedings altogether.
Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 8898/2561 (2018)
Where the same disputed issue has already been adjudicated in another case, deciding the present case must depend on that ruling, so a stay under section 39 paragraph one furthers the proper administration of justice.
The plaintiff sued on an issue identical to one already decided in an earlier case, so the outcome here depended on that prior ruling. The Supreme Court observed that staying this case until the other became final would have served justice under section 39 paragraph one. In the event, the related case had become final by Supreme Court judgment 7384/2561, holding the disputed land to be public property, and that ruling bound the parties as the same litigants.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 3051/2548 (2005)
Ordering a stay to await the result of another case under section 39 is within the court's discretion; the court is not compelled to await every other case, and a challenge to that discretion is a question of fact.
The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court asking that the reading of judgment be withheld until a separate case seeking to set aside an auction sale became final. The Supreme Court held that whether to await another case under section 39 lies in the court's discretion and is not a rule compelling the court to await every case. The defendant's appeal was therefore an appeal on the facts, barred under section 248 paragraph two, and was not accepted for decision.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 3562/2563 (2020)
Where a plaint must be stayed under business reorganisation law, the court may also stay the connected counterclaim under section 39 so that claim and counterclaim can be taken up together once the reorganisation is resolved.
Because the plaint had to be stayed under section 90/12(4) of the Bankruptcy Act on business reorganisation, and claim and counterclaim needed to be decided consistently, the Supreme Court held it appropriate to stay the counterclaim as well under section 39, read with section 7 of the Consumer Case Procedure Act. Once the reorganisation ended or the central bankruptcy court allowed the plaintiff's case to proceed, both claim and counterclaim could then be taken up together.
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 ask the court to wait for the result of a related case?
Yes. Under section 39, if deciding your case depends on a point another court or an official must decide first, or on a related criminal matter, you can ask the court to postpone until that point is resolved. The court decides whether the stay serves justice.
Must the court always wait for the other case?
No. The power to stay under section 39 is discretionary, not mandatory. The court is not required to await the result of every related case and may refuse a stay and continue the hearing.