Section 146 — Conflicting final judgments, which prevails
Statutory text (Thai original)
เมื่อมีคำพิพากษาหรือคำสั่งอันเป็นที่สุดของสองศาลซึ่งต่างชั้นกัน ต่างกล่าวถึงการปฏิบัติชำระหนี้อันแบ่งแยกจากกันไม่ได้ และคำพิพากษาหรือคำสั่งนั้นขัดกัน ให้ถือตามคำพิพากษาหรือคำสั่งของศาลที่สูงกว่าถ้าศาลชั้นต้นศาลเดียวกัน หรือศาลชั้นต้นสองศาลในลำดับชั้นเดียวกัน หรือศาลอุทธรณ์ ได้พิพากษาหรือมีคำสั่งดังกล่าวมาแล้ว คู่ความในกระบวนพิจารณาแห่งคดีที่มีคำพิพากษาหรือคำสั่งนั้น ชอบที่จะยื่นคำร้องขอต่อศาลที่อยู่ในลำดับสูงขึ้นไปให้มีคำสั่งกำหนดว่าจะให้ถือตามคำพิพากษาหรือคำสั่งใด คำสั่งเช่นว่านี้ให้เป็นที่สุด
English translation
Where there are final judgments or orders of two courts of different levels, each dealing with the performance of an obligation that is indivisible, and those judgments or orders conflict, the judgment or order of the higher court shall be followed. If the court of first instance, being the same court, or two courts of first instance of the same level, or the appeal court, have given such judgments or orders, a party to the proceedings of the case in which the judgment or order was given is entitled to file an application with the court of the next higher level for an order determining which judgment or order is to be followed. Such an order is final.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 146 resolves the rare situation of two final judgments that conflict over an indivisible obligation. Where the conflicting judgments come from courts of different levels, the higher court's judgment governs automatically. Where they come from the same court, two first instance courts of the same level, or the appeal court, the section gives a party a procedural route to petition the next higher court to determine which judgment prevails, and that determination is final. Case law confirms the section applies only to genuinely conflicting final judgments concerning an obligation that cannot be divided, and not to every pair of inconsistent decisions. It complements Sections 145 and 148 by dealing with the outward clash of two final results rather than the binding effect of a single one.
Why this matters in practice
This is a specialist rule you meet when two final judgments genuinely clash over the same obligation that cannot be split. If the judgments are from different court levels, follow the higher one; if from the same level, you can petition the next higher court to decide which controls, and its order is final. The section is narrow: it applies only to conflicting final judgments on an indivisible obligation, not to any two decisions you dislike. Because these situations are technical and time sensitive, get advice quickly, for example through an online consultation with a Thai lawyer.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 674/2566 (2023)
Section 146 paragraph one applies only where final judgments of two courts of different levels conflict over the performance of an indivisible obligation.
The court explained that the essence of Section 146 paragraph one is a conflict between final judgments of two courts of different levels concerning an indivisible obligation. Applying that, it examined whether a Supreme Court judgment conflicted with an appeal court judgment in a related execution matter.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 3196/2567 (2024)
A party who claims that two Supreme Court judgments conflict may seek a determination of which is to be followed under Section 146 paragraph two.
The plaintiff argued that one Supreme Court judgment conflicted with another decided in the case and asked, under Section 146 paragraph two read with Civil and Commercial Code Section 4 paragraph two, for a determination of which to follow. The matter proceeded through the courts to the Supreme Court on this question.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 8195/2561 (2018)
Where two judgments are said to conflict over an indivisible obligation, a party may invoke Section 146 to argue that the higher Supreme Court judgment must be followed.
A party argued that judgments on partitioning inherited land dealt with an indivisible obligation and that, under Section 146, the higher Supreme Court judgment had to be followed, so the land could not be sold to enforce the lower appeal court judgment. The court examined the two cases to decide whether the conflict rule applied.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
What happens if two final judgments conflict?
Under Section 146, if the judgments are on an indivisible obligation and come from courts of different levels, the higher court's judgment is followed. If they are of the same level, a party may petition the next higher court to decide.
Does Section 146 apply to any two inconsistent judgments?
No. It applies only to final judgments that conflict over an obligation that is indivisible. Not every pair of inconsistent decisions falls within the section.