Section 264: Protecting a party's interests during proceedings

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 1540/2568 (2025)

   Where the judgment says nothing about a provisional measure ordered during the proceedings, the measure continues in force under Section 260 (2) only so far as is necessary to give effect to the judgment. Once the applicant has won and can enforce the judgment by execution, there is no longer any need to compel compliance with the interim order, and the application for it is struck off the cause list.

   The plaintiff had obtained interim orders during the proceedings, which the first defendant had not complied with, and then won at first instance and on appeal, neither judgment mentioning those orders. Applying Section 260 (2) with section 7 of the Consumer Case Procedure Act B.E. 2551, the Supreme Court held the interim orders survived only so far as needed to give effect to the judgment; since the plaintiff could now execute the judgment, there was no longer any need to enforce them. It therefore did not decide the first defendant's appeal about them and struck the application off the cause list.

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 475/2562 (2019)

   An application under Section 264 for protection of a party's interests during an appeal is ancillary to the main case. Once the appellate judgment in the main case has become final because no party appealed further, nothing can be gained by deciding the ancillary application, and the Supreme Court strikes it off the cause list without ruling on it.

   The first and second defendants appealed to the Supreme Court against the refusal of their Section 264 application to be protected during the appeal. Meanwhile the Court of Appeal dismissed their appeal in the main case, which had alleged that the purchaser had bought at the auction unlawfully, and nobody appealed further, so that judgment became final. The Supreme Court held there was nothing to be gained by deciding the ancillary application and struck it off the cause list without ruling on the interest they claimed.

3. Supreme Court Judgment No. 7788/2560 (2017)

   An appeal about a Section 264 application to protect a party's interests is pointless once it is settled that there is no ground to revoke the seizure or to stay the execution that the application was meant to hold off. The Supreme Court then strikes that part off the cause list without deciding it on its merits.

   The second and third defendants asked for the seizure of six plots of land to be withdrawn and for execution to be stayed, and those applications failed. The Supreme Court held that, since there was no ground to revoke the seizure or to stay the execution sought in their motion of 28 January 2558, there was no point in considering their further appeal about the protective application, and it was struck off the cause list. The interest they claimed was never decided on its merits.

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