Section 261 — Applying to withdraw or vary a measure
Statutory text (Thai original)
จำเลยหรือบุคคลภายนอกซึ่งได้รับหมายยึด หมายอายัด หรือคำสั่งตามมาตรา ๒๕๔
(๑)
(๒) หรือ
(๓) หรือจะต้องเสียหายเพราะหมายยึด หมายอายัด หรือคำสั่งดังกล่าว อาจมีคำขอต่อศาลให้ถอนหมาย เพิกถอนคำสั่ง หรือแก้ไขเปลี่ยนแปลงคำสั่ง หมายยึด หรือหมายอายัด ซึ่งออกตามคำสั่งดังกล่าวได้ แต่ถ้าบุคคลภายนอกเช่นว่านั้นขอให้ปล่อยทรัพย์สินที่ยึดหรือคัดค้านคำสั่งอายัดให้นำมาตรา ๓๒๓ หรือมาตรา ๓๒๕ แล้วแต่กรณี มาใช้บังคับโดยอนุโลม จำเลยซึ่งถูกศาลออกคำสั่งจับกุมตามมาตรา ๒๕๔
(๔) อาจมีคำขอต่อศาลให้เพิกถอนคำสั่งถอนหมาย หรือให้ปล่อยตัวไปโดยไม่มีเงื่อนไขหรือให้ปล่อยตัวไปชั่วคราวโดยมีหลักประกันตามจำนวนที่ศาลเห็นสมควรหรือไม่ก็ได้ถ้าปรากฏว่าวิธีการที่กำหนดไว้ตามมาตรา ๒๕๔ นั้น ไม่มีเหตุเพียงพอหรือมีเหตุอันสมควรประการอื่น ศาลจะมีคำสั่งอนุญาตตามคำขอหรือมีคำสั่งอื่นใดตามที่เห็นสมควร เพื่อประโยชน์แห่งความยุติธรรมก็ได้ ทั้งนี้ ศาลจะกำหนดให้ผู้ขอวางเงินต่อศาลหรือหาประกันมาให้ตามจำนวนและภายในระยะเวลาที่เห็นสมควรหรือจะกำหนดเงื่อนไขใด ๆ ตามที่เห็นสมควรก็ได้ แต่ในกรณีที่เป็นการฟ้องเรียกเงิน ห้ามไม่ให้ศาลเรียกประกันเกินกว่าจำนวนเงินที่ฟ้องรวมทั้งค่าฤชาธรรมเนียม
English translation
A defendant, or a third person, who has received a writ of seizure, a writ of attachment, or an order under Section 254(1), (2), or (3), or who would suffer damage from such writ of seizure, writ of attachment, or order, may apply to the court to withdraw the writ, revoke the order, or alter the order, writ of seizure, or writ of attachment issued under such order. However, if such a third person applies for the release of the seized property or objects to the attachment order, Section 323 or Section 325, as the case may be, shall apply mutatis mutandis. A defendant against whom the court has issued an order of arrest under Section 254(4) may apply to the court to revoke the order, to withdraw the warrant, to be released unconditionally, or to be released provisionally on security in such amount as the court thinks fit, or without security. If it appears that the measure prescribed under Section 254 lacks sufficient grounds, or that there is any other proper cause, the court may grant the application, or make any other order it thinks fit, in the interest of justice. In so doing, the court may require the applicant to deposit money with the court or to provide security in such amount and within such period as it thinks fit, or may impose any conditions it thinks fit; but where the action is a claim for money, the court shall not require security exceeding the amount claimed together with the costs.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 261 provides the mechanism to unwind or adjust a provisional measure and identifies who may invoke it: the defendant, and any third person burdened by or facing damage from a seizure, attachment, or order under Section 254(1) to (3). For a third party seeking release of seized property or objecting to an attachment, it borrows the execution objection procedures in Sections 323 and 325 by analogy, so the third party enjoys the same right to dispute the claim asserted against it that an affected person has in execution proceedings. A defendant arrested under Section 254(4) has its own release options, including bail. The unifying standard is that the court may act where the measure lacks sufficient grounds or there is other proper cause, and any security demanded in a money claim is capped at the sum claimed plus costs.
Why this matters in practice
A third party whose property or money is caught by an interim seizure or attachment should file in the existing case under Section 261, not start a separate lawsuit to undo the order, and may raise the same objections available in execution. For a defendant, the key is to attack the grounds: showing the measure lacks sufficient basis, rather than merely arguing the merits of the whole case, is what unlocks withdrawal or variation. Because these applications are technical and time sensitive, they are a common point to seek advice from a Thai lawyer.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 14206/2558 (2015)
A third party who receives an attachment order made as a provisional measure may apply to the court under Section 261 to revoke it, and under the first paragraph of Section 261 the third party may dispute or deny the debt claimed against it, using the objection rights that the execution provisions extend to an affected third party.
The court had attached the wages a first defendant was to receive from the applicant, a third party. The Supreme Court read the third party's request to revoke the attachment and recover the money as an application under Section 261, and held that the first paragraph of Section 261 lets such a third party dispute or deny the debt claimed against it, drawing on the objection rights the execution provisions give an affected third party.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 4426/2543 (2000)
The court will vary or withdraw a provisional measure only where the defendant applies and shows that the measure under Section 254 lacks sufficient grounds or that there is other proper cause. A complaint that the plaintiff's suit is meritless or brought in bad faith is merely a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, not a ground under Section 261, paragraph three.
The defendant sought to change the interim measure by arguing the plaintiff's claim was baseless and dishonest. The Supreme Court held that under Section 261, paragraph three, the court changes a provisional measure only if the defendant shows the Section 254 measure lacks sufficient grounds or there is other proper cause, and that the defendant's arguments were merely a challenge to the sufficiency of the plaintiff's evidence.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 2624/2543 (2000)
A third party who claims to be harmed by a temporary prohibition order must apply in the original case under Section 261, paragraph one, to have the order withdrawn. He cannot bring a separate new action seeking a declaration that the order has no effect.
A third party who said it would be harmed by a temporary prohibition order in an earlier case filed a fresh lawsuit to declare the order ineffective. The Supreme Court held that the proper course was to apply in the original case under Section 261, paragraph one, and that a separate new action for that purpose was not permissible.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
How does a third party challenge a seizure or attachment made as an interim measure?
Under Section 261, the third party applies in the original case to withdraw or revoke the order and may raise the same objections available in execution proceedings. Filing a separate new lawsuit to nullify the order is not the proper route.
On what basis can the court vary or withdraw a provisional measure?
Under Section 261, the court may act where the measure under Section 254 lacks sufficient grounds or there is other proper cause. A defendant should attack the grounds for the measure rather than simply argue the merits of the whole case.