Section 265 — Applying the chapter to sureties
Statutory text (Thai original)
ในกรณีที่ศาลยอมรับเอาบุคคลเป็นประกันตามที่บัญญัติไว้ในประมวลกฎหมายนี้ และบุคคลนั้นแสดงกิริยาซึ่งพอจะเห็นได้ว่าจะทำให้โจทก์เสียเปรียบ หรือจะหลีกเลี่ยง ขัดขวาง หรือกระทำให้เนิ่นช้าซึ่งการปฏิบัติตามหน้าที่ของตน ให้นำบทบัญญัติแห่งหมวดนี้มาใช้บังคับโดยอนุโลม
English translation
Where the court has accepted a person as surety as provided in this Code, and that person shows conduct from which it may be seen that he will place the plaintiff at a disadvantage, or will evade, obstruct, or delay the performance of his duty, the provisions of this Chapter shall apply mutatis mutandis.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 265 extends the reach of the provisional measures chapter to a person the court has accepted as a surety. A surety who provides security in place of a party effectively holds a position that could frustrate the plaintiff if abused, so the section allows the court to deploy the same protective tools against the surety when the surety shows signs of disadvantaging the plaintiff or of evading, obstructing, or delaying its duty. Because the incorporation is mutatis mutandis, the general principles, the criteria for granting measures, their effect, and the rules on cancellation and compensation, apply to the surety as they would to a defendant, so far as they fit.
Why this matters in practice
In practice this most often surfaces where a surety has posted security, such as a title deed, to substitute for a party's asset in an interim measure. If that surety then acts to undercut the plaintiff or stalls its obligation, the court can treat the surety like a party subject to provisional measures, including the rules on when the measure lapses after judgment. A plaintiff relying on a surety should watch for such conduct, and a proposed surety should understand that accepting the role brings the whole chapter's discipline to bear.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 3504/2541 (1998)
An order accepting sureties who provide security in substitution for the defendant's property, made in connection with an interim prohibition under Section 265 and Section 259 read with Section 274, is itself a provisional measure before judgment, and is therefore subject to the chapter's rules, including the seven day rule on lapse when the judgment is silent.
After the court had temporarily restrained the defendant from dealing with property, it allowed three sureties to substitute other title documents as security under Section 265 and Section 259 read with Section 274. The Supreme Court held this was itself a provisional measure before judgment, so when the court decided for the defendant without mentioning it and the plaintiff did not apply within seven days, the chapter's rules on lapse governed.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
Can provisional measures apply to a surety, not just a defendant?
Yes. Under Section 265, where the court has accepted a person as surety and that surety shows conduct that would disadvantage the plaintiff or evade, obstruct, or delay its duty, the provisional measures chapter applies to the surety by analogy.
Does an order accepting a surety's security count as a provisional measure?
Yes. An order accepting or substituting a surety's security in connection with an interim measure is itself a provisional measure, so the chapter's rules, including how the measure ends after judgment, apply to it.