Section 193 bis — Non-appearance in small claims
Statutory text (Thai original)
ในคดีมโนสาเร่ เมื่อโจทก์ได้ทราบคำสั่งให้มาศาลตามมาตรา ๑๙๓ แล้วไม่มาในวันนัดพิจารณาโดยไม่ได้รับอนุญาตจากศาลให้เลื่อนคดีให้ถือว่าโจทก์ไม่ประสงค์จะดำเนินคดีต่อไป ให้ศาลมีคำสั่งจำหน่ายคดีออกเสียจากสารบบความ
เมื่อจำเลยได้รับหมายเรียกให้มาศาลตามมาตรา ๑๙๓ แล้วไม่มาในวันนัดพิจารณาโดยไม่ได้รับอนุญาตจากศาลให้เลื่อนคดี ถ้าจำเลยไม่ได้ยื่นคำให้การไว้ให้ถือว่าจำเลยขาดนัดยื่นคำให้การ และให้ศาลมีคำพิพากษาหรือคำสั่งโดยนำมาตรา ๑๙๘ ทวิ มาใช้บังคับโดยอนุโลม แต่ถ้าจำเลยได้ยื่นคำให้การไว้ก่อนหรือในวันนัดดังกล่าว ให้ถือว่าจำเลยขาดนัดพิจารณา และให้บังคับตามมาตรา ๒๐๔ มาตรา ๒๐๕ มาตรา ๒๐๖ และมาตรา ๒๐๗ และไม่ว่าจะเป็นกรณีใด ถ้าศาลมีคำสั่งให้สืบพยานก็ให้ศาลดำเนินการต่อไปตามมาตรา ๑๙๓ ตรี มาตรา ๑๙๓ จัตวา และมาตรา ๑๙๓ เบญจ
English translation
In a small claims case, when the plaintiff, having been notified of the order to appear before the court under section 193, does not appear on the hearing date without leave of the court to postpone the case, the plaintiff shall be deemed not to wish to proceed with the case, and the court shall order the case struck off the cause list.
When the defendant, having received a summons to appear before the court under section 193, does not appear on the hearing date without leave of the court to postpone the case: if the defendant has not filed a defense, the defendant shall be deemed to be in default of a defense, and the court shall render a judgment or order by applying section 198 bis mutatis mutandis; but if the defendant filed a defense before or on that hearing date, the defendant shall be deemed to be in default of appearance, and sections 204, 205, 206, and 207 shall apply. In any case, if the court orders the taking of evidence, the court shall proceed further under section 193 ter, section 193 quater, and section 193 quinque.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 193/2 fixes the default consequences of non-appearance under the section 193 regime. A plaintiff who does not appear without leave is deemed to abandon the case, and it is struck off the cause list. A defendant who does not appear is split into two situations: no defense filed means default of a defense, handled by applying section 198 bis; a defense already filed means default of appearance, handled under sections 204 to 207. In either defendant scenario, if evidence is to be taken the case continues under sections 193 ter, quater, and quinque. The provision dovetails with section 193 so that the single-hearing model has clear failure rules.
Why this matters in practice
Attendance at the small claims hearing is not optional. Miss it as plaintiff and your case is struck off; miss it as defendant and you may lose by default, either of a defense or of appearance. If you cannot attend, apply for leave to postpone in advance. A default judgment can still be challenged, but that is harder than simply appearing. If you are chasing a debtor who ignores hearings, see our debt collection service.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1324/2567 (2024)
Where a defendant is in default of a defense under section 193/2 paragraph two, the plaintiff must still prove the claim ex parte under section 198 bis, and the court may not give judgment for the plaintiff unless the complaint has merit and is not contrary to law.
The court held that even when the defendant defaulted in a small claims case under section 193/2 paragraph two, the plaintiff had to prove its case ex parte, and evidence of matters outside the complaint could not support judgment.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 13049/2558 (2015)
A defendant is not in default of appearance under section 193/2 paragraph two where a representative with authority appears on the hearing date to seek a postponement; refusing the postponement only forfeits the right to cross-examine that day.
A clerk authorized by the defendants appeared to seek a postponement, so the defendants were not in default of appearance under section 193/2 paragraph two; treating them as in default and hearing the plaintiff ex parte was improper.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 8381/2551 (2008)
Where the plaintiff in a small claims case does not appear on the hearing date without leave to postpone, the court strikes the case off the cause list under section 193/2 paragraph one; such a case seeks relief not capable of monetary valuation, so only the fixed 200 baht fee is due.
The Supreme Court ordered the plaintiff's case struck off under section 193/2 paragraph one for non-appearance, and treated it as a claim not capable of monetary valuation, so only the 200 baht fee applied and the excess was refunded.
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 if the plaintiff does not appear at the small claims hearing?
Under section 193/2 paragraph one, without leave to postpone the plaintiff is deemed not to wish to proceed and the court strikes the case off the cause list.
What if the defendant does not appear?
If no defense was filed, the defendant is in default of a defense under section 198 bis; if a defense was filed, the defendant is in default of appearance under sections 204 to 207.