Section 198: Plaintiff's application after default

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 5336/2551 (2008)

   Where a party in default of answer exists but the other party fails to apply to the court within fifteen days for a default win, the court shall strike the case off the cause list under Section 198 paragraph two.

   In an interpleader dispute the party who should have answered failed to do so, but the claimant did not apply within fifteen days for a default win. The trial court therefore struck the case off the cause list under Section 198 paragraph two, and the Supreme Court reviewed whether that order was lawful.

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 10840/2558 (2015)

   Proceedings in the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court are governed first by its own Act and by the Intellectual Property and International Trade Case Regulations B.E. 2540, and other procedural codes apply, mutatis mutandis, only where those do not provide. Clause 11 of the Regulations requires that court to make an order declaring the defendant in default of answer, unlike an ordinary civil case where default operates by law and no order is needed. Until that order is made, Section 198 paragraph two cannot be applied to strike the case off the cause list.

   The third defendant filed no answer, and the case against that defendant was struck off the cause list under Section 198 paragraph two. The Supreme Court held that order could not stand: clause 11 of the Intellectual Property and International Trade Case Regulations B.E. 2540 requires that court first to make an order declaring the defendant in default of answer, and no such order had been made, so Section 198 paragraph two was not yet available.

3. Supreme Court Judgment No. 1479/2562 (2019)

   Where the Court of Appeal has already decided an issue and the party adversely affected does not challenge that decision on final appeal, the issue is settled. Raising it again asks the court to conduct proceedings on a case or an issue already adjudicated, which section 144 paragraph one forbids. Here the settled point was that the first court decision to take the plaintiffs evidence ex parte, rather than strike the case off, was an appropriate exercise of discretion not contrary to section 198 paragraph two. A challenge to a refusal to strike a case off is relief not calculable in money and carries a fee of 200 baht under Table 1(2)(a).

   The defendants were in default of answer in a claim for subdivision of land held under an n.s.3 kor certificate. They had already appealed to the Court of Appeal arguing that the plaintiffs failure to apply within fifteen days made the proceedings bad under section 198 paragraph two, and the Court of Appeal decided that point against them: since the plaintiffs had attended to carry the case forward, the first court decision to take their evidence ex parte rather than strike the case off was an appropriate exercise of discretion. The plaintiffs did not challenge that on final appeal, so the point was settled. When the defendants raised it again the Supreme Court held it to be repeat litigation of an adjudicated issue, barred by section 144 paragraph one. It added that their challenge was relief not calculable in money, carrying a fee of 200 baht, and ordered 6,247 baht returned.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.