Article 89: Duty to cross-examine opposing witnesses
Statutory text (Thai original)
คู่ความฝ่ายใดประสงค์จะนำสืบพยานหลักฐานของตนเพื่อพิสูจน์ต่อพยานของคู่ความฝ่ายอื่นในกรณีต่อไปนี้
(๑) หักล้างหรือเปลี่ยนแปลงแก้ไขถ้อยคำพยานในข้อความทั้งหลายซึ่งพยานเช่นว่านั้นเป็นผู้รู้เห็น หรือ
(๒) พิสูจน์ข้อความอย่างหนึ่งอย่างใดอันเกี่ยวด้วยการกระทำ ถ้อยคำ เอกสาร หรือพยานหลักฐานอื่นใดซึ่งพยานเช่นว่านั้นได้กระทำขึ้นให้คู่ความฝ่ายนั้นถามค้านพยานดังกล่าวเสียในเวลาที่พยานเบิกความ เพื่อให้พยานมีโอกาสอธิบายถึงข้อความเหล่านั้น แม้ว่าพยานนั้นจะมิได้เบิกความถึงข้อความดังกล่าวก็ตามในกรณีที่คู่ความฝ่ายนั้นมิได้ถามค้านพยานของคู่ความฝ่ายอื่นไว้ดังกล่าวมาข้างต้นแล้ว ต่อมานำพยานหลักฐานมาสืบถึงข้อความนั้น คู่ความฝ่ายอื่นที่สืบพยานนั้นไว้ชอบที่จะคัดค้านได้ในขณะที่คู่ความฝ่ายนั้นนำพยานหลักฐานมาสืบ และในกรณีเช่นว่านี้ ให้ศาลปฏิเสธไม่ยอมรับฟังพยานหลักฐานเช่นว่ามานั้นในกรณีที่คู่ความฝ่ายที่ประสงค์จะนำสืบพยานหลักฐานเพื่อพิสูจน์ต่อพยานตามวรรคหนึ่ง แสดงให้เป็นที่พอใจของศาลว่า เมื่อเวลาพยานเบิกความนั้นตนไม่รู้หรือไม่มีเหตุอันควรรู้ถึงข้อความดังกล่าวมาแล้ว หรือถ้าศาลเห็นว่าเพื่อประโยชน์แห่งความยุติธรรมจำเป็นต้องสืบพยานหลักฐานเช่นว่านี้ ศาลจะยอมรับฟังพยานหลักฐานเช่นว่านี้ก็ได้ แต่ในกรณีเช่นนี้ คู่ความอีกฝ่ายหนึ่งจะขอให้เรียกพยานหลักฐานที่เกี่ยวข้องมาสืบอีกก็ได้ หรือเมื่อศาลเห็นสมควรจะเรียกมาสืบเองก็ได้
English translation
A party who wishes to adduce its own evidence to prove, against a witness of the other party, in the following cases:
(1) to rebut or alter the testimony of the witness on any matters of which such witness has direct knowledge, or
(2) to prove any matter concerning an act, statement, document, or other evidence which such witness has made,
must cross-examine such witness at the time the witness gives testimony, so that the witness has an opportunity to explain those matters, even though the witness has not testified about them. Where such party has not cross-examined the other party's witness as stated above and afterwards adduces evidence about that matter, the other party who presented that witness is entitled to object at the time such party adduces the evidence, and in such case the court shall refuse to admit such evidence. Where the party wishing to adduce evidence to prove against a witness under paragraph one satisfies the court that at the time the witness testified it did not know, or had no reasonable ground to know, of such matter, or where the court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice it is necessary to take such evidence, the court may admit such evidence; but in such case the other party may request that the related evidence be called for examination, or the court, when it thinks fit, may call it for examination of its own motion.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified. Always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 89 codifies the rule that a party must confront an opposing witness during cross-examination with any matter it later intends to use to contradict or explain that witness's testimony. Its purpose is fairness: the witness must be given a chance to answer before the contradicting evidence is received. The sanction in paragraph two is strict, the court must refuse evidence adduced without prior cross-examination once the opponent objects, subject only to the paragraph three exceptions where the party did not and could not reasonably have known of the matter, or where justice requires. In practice the section is frequently applied through the special procedure statutes, for example the labor courts, by way of the cross-references in those acts to the Code.
Why this matters in practice
This is a trap for the unprepared: a good document or admission can be shut out simply because your lawyer did not put it to the other side's witness on the stand. Instruct counsel early about every point you expect to prove so it can be raised in cross-examination, and keep a clear record if you only learned of a matter after the witness testified, because that is what unlocks the paragraph three exception.
Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section
-
Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 13145/2558 (2015)
Because the labour court alone examines witnesses under section 45 paragraph two of the Act on the Establishment of and Procedure for Labour Courts B.E. 2522, and questioning a witness called by the other side is not cross-examination, section 89 paragraph one(2), which requires such a witness to be cross-examined beforehand on what the party will prove later, cannot be applied to the examination of witnesses in a labour court.
Section 45 paragraph two of the Act on the Establishment of and Procedure for Labour Courts B.E. 2522 provides that only the labour court examines the parties' witnesses or those it calls itself, and that a party may question them only with the court's leave, all such questioning being examination rather than cross-examination. The Supreme Court therefore held that neither section 117 paragraphs one and two, which give both parties the right to examine and cross-examine without leave, nor section 89 paragraph one(2), which requires prior cross-examination on matters to be proved later, could be applied to the examination of witnesses in a labour court.
-
Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 12184/2553 (2010)
Section 45 paragraph two of the Act on the Establishment of and Procedure for Labour Courts B.E. 2522 gives only the labour court the power to examine witnesses, and a party may question a witness only with its leave; questioning a witness called by the other side is therefore not cross-examination. Section 89 cannot be applied to the taking of evidence in a labour court, so a party need not put to the other side's witnesses beforehand the matters it will prove later.
In labour cases section 45 paragraph two of the Act on the Establishment of and Procedure for Labour Courts B.E. 2522 provides that the labour court examines all witnesses, whichever side calls them or if the court calls them itself, and that a party or its advocate may question a witness only with the court's leave. All such questioning is examination, so questioning a witness called by the other side is not cross-examination, and the taking of evidence differs from that in an ordinary civil case. The Supreme Court therefore held that section 89 could not be applied, that the defendant did not have to put to the plaintiff's witnesses beforehand the matters he would later prove, and that the Central Labour Court had properly admitted his testimony.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Cited in 47 Supreme Court decisions (1943 to 2015)
Décisions de citation sélectionnées
- Decision 13145/2558 (2015)
- Décision 6087/2548 (2005)
- Decision 417/2546 (2003)
- Decision 943/2543 (2000)
- Decision 486/2542 (1999)
- Decision 5712/2541 (1998)
- Décision 2572/2541 (1998)
- Decision 1201/2541 (1998)
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
- Art. 15 du Code de procédure pénale thaïlandais 5
- Article 117 4
- Article 88 4
- Code civil et commercial thaïlandais, art. 1382 3
- Article 90 3
- Article 87 3
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
Pourquoi dois-je contre-interroger le témoin de la partie adverse avant de prouver mon point de vue ?
L'article 89 l'exige afin que le témoin puisse s'expliquer. À défaut, et si vous tentez ultérieurement de prouver ce point, le tribunal devra rejeter cette preuve dès que la partie adverse s'y opposera.
Existe-t-il un moyen d'utiliser les preuves si je n'ai pas procédé à un contre-interrogatoire ?
Oui, si vous convainquez le tribunal que vous n'aviez pas connaissance des faits et que vous ne pouviez raisonnablement pas les connaître au moment du témoignage, ou si le tribunal le juge nécessaire dans l'intérêt de la justice.
Citer cette section
-
Citation simple
Civil Procedure Code, s. 89 (Thailand) -
Citation académique
Civil Procedure Code (Thailand), s. 89. ThaiLawOnline, https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-civil-procedure-code/section-89/ (accessed 1 septembre 2026). -
Citation thaïlandaise
ป.วิ.พ. มาตรา 89 -
Lien permanent
https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-civil-procedure-code/section-89/ -
Intégrer sur votre site
<blockquote cite="https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-civil-procedure-code/section-89/"><p>A party who wishes to adduce its own evidence to prove, against a witness of the other party, in the following cases: (1) to rebut or alter the testimony of the witness on any matters of which such witness has direct knowledge, or (2) to…</p><footer>Civil Procedure Code, s. 89 (Thailand): <a href="https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-civil-procedure-code/section-89/">ThaiLawOnline</a></footer></blockquote>
The Thai text is authoritative. The English is an unofficial translation by ThaiLawOnline, free to reuse with attribution.