Article 77: Service at another place
Statutory text (Thai original)
การส่งคำคู่ความหรือเอกสารอื่นใดโดยเจ้าพนักงานศาลไปยังที่อื่นนอกจากภูมิลำเนา หรือสำนักทำการงานของคู่ความหรือของบุคคลซึ่งระบุไว้ในคำคู่ความ หรือเอกสารนั้น ให้ถือว่าเป็นการถูกต้องตามกฎหมาย เมื่อ
(๑) คู่ความหรือบุคคลนั้นยอมรับคำคู่ความหรือเอกสารนั้นไว้ หรือ
(๒) การส่งคำคู่ความหรือเอกสารนั้นได้กระทำในศาล
English translation
The service of a pleading or any other document by a court officer at a place other than the domicile or place of business of the party or of the person named in the pleading or document shall be regarded as lawful when:
(1) that party or person accepts the pleading or document; or
(2) the service of the pleading or document is made in court.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified. Always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 77 permits service away from the domicile or place of business, but only on two footings: the recipient accepts it, or it is served in court. This is the counterpart to Section 74, which fixes the address as the ordinary place of service; Section 77 relaxes the location but tightens the conditions, because a person served elsewhere has not chosen to be reachable there. It cannot be used to justify posting a notice at an address that is neither the domicile nor a place of business, and attempts to do so are struck down together with Section 79 as improper substituted service.
Why this matters in practice
This section is a safety valve, not a loophole. Serving a defendant at a random third address only works if they actually take the document there, or the service happens in court; posting it at such a place is invalid. If you are contesting service, check whether the place used was really your domicile or place of business, because service at another address without acceptance can be set aside. Where service is disputed, a licensed Thai lawyer can review the return of service for defects.
Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section
-
Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 5845/2558 (2015)
Posting a notice and copy of a petition at a household registration address, rather than serving them at the person's special designated domicile, is not lawful under Sections 74(2), 77, and 79, and the person cannot be held to know the hearing date.
The opposing party posted the hearing notice and copy of its petition at the household registration address where the claimant was listed, not at the claimant's special designated domicile. The court held the posting improper under Sections 74(2), 77, and 79, so the claimant was not shown to know the hearing, and set aside the irregular proceedings under Section 27.
-
Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 894/2538 (1995)
Section 77 addresses service by a court officer at another place or a place of business; serving at the defendant's place of business as shown in the file does not by itself prove the officer knew the defendant was not at the plaint address, and may simply reflect convenience.
The defendant argued that earlier service at his place of business showed the officer knew he did not live at the plaint address. The court, applying Section 77 on service at another place, held this did not prove such knowledge and could merely reflect that serving at the place of business was more convenient, especially as the defendant worked as a lawyer.
-
Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 7233/2537 (1994)
Where an address is neither the defendant's domicile nor place of business, posting the notice there is unlawful under Sections 77 and 79, and a third party's statement that the defendant lived there does not bind the defendant, since a non party has no authority to make such a declaration.
The officer posted the notice of the appellate judgment date at an address that did not appear in the defendant's household registration and was not his domicile or place of business. The court held the posting unlawful under Sections 77 and 79, and a non party's statement that the defendant lived there did not bind him, so reading the judgment without his knowledge was improper.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Cited in 11 Supreme Court decisions (1987 to 2020)
Décisions de citation sélectionnées
- Decision 5188/2548 (2005)
- Décision 7270/2547 (2004)
- Decision 894/2538 (1995)
- Decision 7233/2537 (1994)
- Decision 4626/2530 (1987)
- Decision 2529/2533 (1990)
- Decision 4828/2539 (1996)
- Décision 8368/2563 (2020)
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 74 6
- Article 76 6
- Article 79 6
- Article 75 5
- Article 78 5
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
Un document peut-il être signifié ailleurs que chez moi ou à mon bureau ?
Oui, mais uniquement en vertu de l'article 77 si vous acceptez le document à cet autre endroit, ou si la signification est faite au tribunal. Sinon, la signification doit avoir lieu à votre domicile ou à votre lieu d'activité professionnelle.
L'affichage d'un avis à une adresse aléatoire constitue-t-il un service valable ?
Non. L'article 77 n'autorise pas l'affichage à une adresse autre que votre domicile ou votre établissement. Un tel affichage est généralement annulé, de même que l'article 79, pour cause de signification irrégulière.
Guides connexes sur ThaiLawOnline
Citer cette section
-
Citation simple
Civil Procedure Code, s. 77 (Thailand) -
Citation académique
Civil Procedure Code (Thailand), s. 77. ThaiLawOnline, https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-civil-procedure-code/section-77/ (accessed 1 septembre 2026). -
Citation thaïlandaise
ป.วิ.พ. มาตรา 77 -
Lien permanent
https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-civil-procedure-code/section-77/ -
Intégrer sur votre site
<blockquote cite="https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-civil-procedure-code/section-77/"><p>The service of a pleading or any other document by a court officer at a place other than the domicile or place of business of the party or of the person named in the pleading or document shall be regarded as lawful when: (1) that…</p><footer>Civil Procedure Code, s. 77 (Thailand): <a href="https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-civil-procedure-code/section-77/">ThaiLawOnline</a></footer></blockquote>
The Thai text is authoritative. The English is an unofficial translation by ThaiLawOnline, free to reuse with attribution.