Section 138 — Judgment on a compromise, limited appeal
Statutory text (Thai original)
ในคดีที่คู่ความตกลงกันหรือประนีประนอมยอมความกันในประเด็นแห่งคดีโดยมิได้มีการถอนคำฟ้องนั้น และข้อตกลงหรือการประนีประนอมยอมความกันนั้นไม่เป็นการฝ่าฝืนต่อกฎหมาย ให้ศาลจดรายงานพิสดารแสดงข้อความแห่งข้อตกลงหรือการประนีประนอมยอมความเหล่านั้นไว้ แล้วพิพากษาไปตามนั้นห้ามมิให้อุทธรณ์คำพิพากษาเช่นว่านี้ เว้นแต่ในเหตุต่อไปนี้
(๑) เมื่อมีข้อกล่าวอ้างว่าคู่ความฝ่ายใดฝ่ายหนึ่งฉ้อฉล
(๒) เมื่อคำพิพากษานั้นถูกกล่าวอ้างว่าเป็นการละเมิดต่อบทบัญญัติแห่งกฎหมายอันเกี่ยวด้วยความสงบเรียบร้อยของประชาชน
(๓) เมื่อคำพิพากษาคดีนั้นถูกกล่าวอ้างว่ามิได้เป็นไปตามข้อตกลงหรือการประนีประนอมยอมความถ้าคู่ความตกลงกันเพียงแต่ให้เสนอคดีต่ออนุญาโตตุลาการ ให้นำบทบัญญัติแห่งประมวลกฎหมายนี้ว่าด้วยอนุญาโตตุลาการมาใช้บังคับ
English translation
In a case where the parties reach an agreement or a compromise on the issues in the case without withdrawing the complaint, and that agreement or compromise is not contrary to law, the court shall record in detail the terms of that agreement or compromise and give judgment accordingly. No appeal is allowed against such a judgment, except on the following grounds:
(1) where it is alleged that a party acted fraudulently;
(2) where the judgment is alleged to violate a provision of law relating to public order;
(3) where the judgment is alleged not to accord with the agreement or compromise.
If the parties agree only to submit the case to arbitrators, the provisions of this Code on arbitration shall apply.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 138 gives statutory force to in-court settlements. Where the parties compromise the issues without withdrawing the complaint and the terms are lawful, the court records them in detail and enters a judgment by consent that carries the finality of an adjudicated case. The provision then sharply limits appeals, permitting them only for fraud, violation of a public order law, or a judgment that departs from the agreed terms. A final paragraph channels agreements to arbitrate into the Code's arbitration provisions. In practice the consent judgment binds the parties like any other final judgment and can be enforced accordingly.
Why this matters in practice
A judgment by consent under Section 138 is powerful and hard to undo: it is enforceable like a contested judgment but you generally lose the right to appeal, so read the settlement terms carefully before the court records them. The three exceptions, fraud, breach of a public order law, and a judgment that does not match the agreement, are narrow and hard to prove after the fact. If your dispute may settle, understanding the tradeoff between an ordinary judgment and a consent judgment is worth advice, and mediation options are covered in our guide to alternative dispute resolution in Thailand.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 2274/2568 (2025)
Where a compromise term is not itself unlawful, a judgment given on it is not contrary to a public order law, so no appeal lies under the Section 138(2) exception.
The court held that an agreement letting the creditor charge interest on the whole outstanding principal did not offend Civil and Commercial Code Section 224/1, so the consent judgment did not violate a public order law and could not be appealed under the Section 138(2) exception.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1201/2565 (2022)
A compromise made before the court under Section 138, checked by the parties without objection, results in a judgment by consent that becomes final and binds the parties.
The court found no bad faith in making the compromise or enforcing it. The settlement was made under Section 138 before the court, the parties raised no objection that any term breached the law, and after the consent judgment none of the defendants appealed on fraud or illegality, so the judgment became final and binding.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 308/2563 (2020)
Where the parties agree to stake the case on a defined question, the decision on that question under Section 138 binds them according to the terms of the wager agreement.
The parties agreed to be bound by how a defined ownership question was decided. The Supreme Court held that its ruling matched the agreed question under Section 138, so the parties were bound by the wager agreement and the transfer of the disputed land had to be treated as lawful.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
Can you appeal a judgment made on a settlement in court?
Usually not. Under Section 138 a consent judgment cannot be appealed except on three grounds: fraud by a party, breach of a public order law, or a judgment that does not accord with the agreement.
Is a consent judgment binding and enforceable?
Yes. Once the court records a lawful compromise and gives judgment under Section 138, it binds the parties and is enforceable like any other final judgment.