Article 57Intervention d'un tiers dans une affaire

Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section

1. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 3001/2568 (2025)

   Section 57(1) requires an intervener whose claim is connected with enforcement of the judgment to file the application with the court that issued the writ of execution. It follows that the trial court, as the court that issued the writ, must hold the inquiry and rule on the application. Where the Court of Appeal instead allows the intervention itself in place of the trial court, that is improper. Where the underlying execution has in any event been set aside, remitting the intervention for a fresh ruling would no longer benefit the parties, and the interveners are left to bring separate proceedings.

   Under a compromise judgment the plaintiff leased the land from the defendant for three years to 31 December 2564, undertaking to vacate within thirty days of the term ending. Before the term expired the plaintiff took a fresh lease from the two interveners, who were the majority estate administrators, and stayed on under it. The defendant obtained a writ of execution to evict on 15 February 2565, and the interveners applied at the execution stage to be joined under section 57(1); the Court of Appeal allowed them in itself. The Supreme Court held that by continuing in occupation under the new lease the plaintiff had complied with the compromise judgment and was not in breach, so the defendant had no right to execute and the writ was defective and was revoked under section 295, a question of public order the Court could raise itself under section 142(5) with sections 246 and 252. On the intervention, section 57(1) requires the application to be filed with the court that issued the writ, so it was for the trial court to hold the inquiry and rule, and the Court of Appeal's own order allowing the intervention was improper. Since the execution had fallen away, remitting would serve no purpose, and the Court directed the two interveners to litigate separately.

2. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 4295/2567 (2024)

   Under section 57(3) the court may, on a party's application, summon an outsider such as a company liquidator alleged to have acted unlawfully into the case as a co-defendant.

   After the defendant company registered its dissolution and completed liquidation, the plaintiff asked the court to summon the liquidator, in his capacity as liquidator and personally, as a co-defendant under section 57, alleging his liquidation conduct was unlawful and a tort. The court summoned the company through the liquidator and the liquidator himself as co-defendants under section 57(3).

3. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 8085/2567 (2024)

   Section 57(1) permits a third party who needs to protect his own right to intervene voluntarily as a party in a pending case, including a dispute over the validity of mortgages.

   In a dispute over the enforcement and validity of mortgages, the trial court allowed an intervener to enter as a party under section 57(1). Both the plaintiff and the defendants answered the intervention seeking its dismissal. The case illustrates court-granted voluntary intervention to protect the intervener's own right.

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