Section 19 — Ordering parties to appear in person
Statutory text (Thai original)
ศาลมีอำนาจสั่งได้ตามที่เห็นสมควรให้คู่ความทุกฝ่าย หรือฝ่ายใดฝ่ายหนึ่งมาศาลด้วยตนเอง ถึงแม้ว่าคู่ความนั้น ๆ จะได้มีทนายความว่าต่างแก้ต่างอยู่แล้วก็ดี อนึ่ง ถ้าศาลเห็นว่าการที่คู่ความมาศาลด้วยตนเองอาจยังให้เกิดความตกลงหรือการประนีประนอมยอมความดังที่บัญญัติไว้ในมาตราต่อไปนี้ ก็ให้ศาลสั่งให้คู่ความมาศาลด้วยตนเอง
English translation
The court has the power to order, as it thinks fit, that all parties, or any one party, appear before the court in person, even though the parties are already represented by an advocate defending or contesting the case. Moreover, if the court is of the opinion that the appearance of the parties before the court in person may give rise to a settlement or a compromise as provided in the following sections, the court shall order the parties to appear before the court in person.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 19 sits within Chapter 3 and equips the court to summon the parties themselves, independently of their advocates. Its purpose is twofold: to let the court deal directly with the persons who know the facts and control the decision, and to open the door to settlement. The second sentence links directly to the conciliation powers in Sections 20, 20 bis and 20 ter, mandating personal attendance where the court sees a real prospect of agreement. The provision reflects the Code's policy of encouraging parties to resolve disputes by compromise rather than by full adjudication.
Why this matters in practice
Even with a lawyer on record, you may be ordered to attend court yourself, most often for a settlement or mediation session, and you should treat that order seriously. Failing to appear when ordered can have real consequences, including contempt of court. If you receive an order to appear in person, ask your lawyer what the hearing is for and how to prepare, especially if it is aimed at settlement; the firm also advises on mediation and other dispute resolution.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 102/2507 (1964)
A person who has acknowledged the court's order to appear but then fails to attend on the appointed date, without notifying the court of any impediment, may be found in contempt of court under Section 31(5) read with Section 19.
Nai Wichai had signed to acknowledge the court's order under Section 19, but did not appear at the first inquiry date and gave no reason for his absence. The court held this was contempt of court under Section 31(5) read with Section 19 and imposed one month's imprisonment.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 248/2524 (1981)
Sections 19 and 20 aim to give the court power to try to bring the parties to an agreement or compromise on the dispute, and a judge acting to reduce the parties' points of conflict toward settlement is performing that lawful conciliation function.
In a prosecution alleging a judge had performed his duties improperly during conciliation, the court explained that Sections 19 and 20 are intended to empower the court to try to bring the parties to an agreement or compromise. A judge who seeks to narrow the parties' disagreements toward a settlement is properly carrying out that conciliation role.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
Do I have to attend court in person if I already have a lawyer?
You can be required to. Section 19 lets the court order any or all parties to appear in person even though they are represented, especially where personal attendance may lead to a settlement.
Why would the court order me to come in person?
Often to explore a settlement or compromise, which Section 19 links to the conciliation powers in the following sections, or so the court can deal directly with the person who knows the facts.