Section 239 — Order-appeals decided before judgment-appeals
Statutory text (Thai original)
อุทธรณ์คำสั่งนั้นจะต้องพิจารณาก่อนอุทธรณ์คำพิพากษาเท่าที่สามารถจะทำได้ แม้ถึงว่าอุทธรณ์คำพิพากษานั้นจะได้ลงไว้ในสารบบความของศาลอุทธรณ์ก่อนอุทธรณ์คำสั่งนั้นก็ดี
English translation
An appeal against an order must, so far as possible, be considered before the appeal against the judgment, even though the appeal against the judgment was entered in the docket of the appellate court before the appeal against the order.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 239 sets the order of consideration where an appeal against an interlocutory order and an appeal against the judgment are both before the appellate court. The order-appeal is to be considered first, so far as possible, regardless of docketing sequence, because its outcome may affect how the judgment-appeal is decided. The rule applies to the situation where an order is appealed while the case is otherwise moving to judgment, and it does not prevent an appeal against an interim order made together with the judgment appeal from being decided in a single appellate judgment. Where the appellate court overlooks the order-appeal, that is a procedural error the higher court may correct.
Why this matters in practice
If you are appealing both an order and the judgment, make sure the appellate court addresses the order-appeal, because its result can change the whole picture. In practice, an appeal against an interim order made together with the judgment appeal should be set out in the same appeal document or answer, and the appellate court may decide everything in one judgment. If the appellate court decides the judgment-appeal but ignores your order-appeal, that omission can be raised as an error and corrected on further appeal. Flag the sequencing point expressly in your appeal so it is not overlooked.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 6065/2540 (1997)
Where a party appeals an order together with the appeal against the judgment, the appellate court must consider the appeal against the order first under Section 239; failing to do so is improper.
The objecting party appealed the order refusing an additional witness list together with the appeal against the judgment. The Supreme Court held that under Section 239 the Court of Appeal had to consider the order-appeal first, and, having failed to do so, its handling was improper, so the Supreme Court decided the point itself without remand.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1891/2512 (1969)
An appeal against an interim order made together with the appeal against the judgment may be combined in a single appeal document or answer, and the appellate court may decide all the questions in one judgment; this is not contrary to Section 239, which applies where an order is appealed before the case has been decided.
The Supreme Court held that an appeal against an interim order brought together with the judgment appeal may be combined in one document and decided in one appellate judgment, and that this does not conflict with Section 239, which is directed at the situation where an order is appealed before the case is decided.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
Which appeal does the court decide first, the order or the judgment?
Under Section 239, the appeal against the order must be considered before the appeal against the judgment, so far as possible, even if the judgment-appeal was entered in the docket first.
Can an order and a judgment be appealed in one document?
Yes. An appeal against an interim order made together with the judgment appeal may be combined in the same appeal document or answer, and the appellate court may decide them in a single judgment, which is not contrary to Section 239.
What if the appellate court ignores my appeal against the order?
That is improper. Where the appellate court fails to consider the order-appeal first as required by Section 239, the higher court may treat it as an error and decide the point itself.