Section 199 quinquies: Deciding the new trial application

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 6625/2558 (2015)

   Under Section 199 quinque read with Section 207, a court may grant a new trial only where there is reason to believe the default of answer or of appearance was not intentional or was for reasonable cause and the applicant may have a chance of winning; a weak excuse and defense will not suffice.

   Because the special bankruptcy court law did not provide its own new trial procedure, the Civil Procedure Code applied by analogy. Under Section 199 quinque read with Section 207, the court weighed the second defendant's evidence and grounds, including a claim of being abroad, against the requirement that the default be unintentional or excusable and that the applicant might win.

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 3607/2561 (2018)

   Where the trial court is satisfied, on an application that complies with Section 199 quater paragraph two, that the default was not intentional and that there was reasonable cause, and it dispenses with an inquiry and grants a new trial without objection from the other side, that order is lawful and is not a mistaken order within Section 27. It is final under Section 199 quinque paragraph four, and it revokes of its own force the default judgment and the steps already taken to enforce it, under paragraph three.

   A husband had obtained a divorce judgment in default and had the divorce recorded by the registrar. The wife applied for a new trial, and the trial court dispensed with an inquiry and granted it, no objection being made. The Supreme Court held that order lawful rather than a mistaken order under Section 27, and final under Section 199 quinque paragraph four, with the consequence that the default divorce judgment and the steps taken to give effect to it were revoked of their own force under paragraph three.

3. Supreme Court Judgment No. 12501/2558 (2015)

   An order granting a new trial revokes the earlier judgment of its own force, but both that judgment and its revocation bind only the parties to the case. A person outside the case is not affected by them and therefore has no right to come in as a third party under Section 57 (1).

   A divorce judgment was treated as revoked when the court granted a new trial. Someone who had registered a marriage with the plaintiff after that judgment applied to intervene, saying the revocation affected their rights. The Supreme Court held it did not: the revoked judgment bound only the plaintiff and the defendant, who were the parties, and had no effect on a person outside the case, so there was no right to intervene as a third party under Section 57 (1).

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