Section 275 — Application for a writ of execution
Statutory text (Thai original)
ถ้าเจ้าหนี้ตามคำพิพากษาจะขอให้มีการบังคับคดี ให้ยื่นคำขอฝ่ายเดียวต่อศาลให้บังคับคดีโดยระบุให้ชัดแจ้งซึ่ง
(๑) หนี้ที่ลูกหนี้ตามคำพิพากษายังมิได้ปฏิบัติตามคำบังคับ
(๒) วิธีการที่ขอให้ศาลบังคับคดีนั้น
ในระหว่างที่ศาลยังมิได้กำหนดวิธีการบังคับคดีตามที่เจ้าหนี้ตามคำพิพากษามีคำขอตามวรรคหนึ่ง ถ้ามีเหตุจำเป็น เจ้าหนี้ตามคำพิพากษาจะยื่นคำขอฝ่ายเดียวต่อศาลให้มีคำสั่งกำหนดวิธีการอย่างหนึ่งอย่างใดเพื่อคุ้มครองประโยชน์ของตนไว้ก่อนก็ได้ และถ้าศาลเห็นสมควร จะมีคำสั่งอนุญาตโดยไม่ต้องไต่สวนก็ได้ ในกรณีเช่นว่านี้ ลูกหนี้ตามคำพิพากษาอาจยื่นคำขอโดยพลันให้ศาลยกเลิกคำสั่งอนุญาตดังกล่าวได้ คำขอเช่นว่านี้อาจทำเป็นคำขอฝ่ายเดียวโดยได้รับอนุญาตจากศาล และถ้าศาลเห็นสมควรจะมีคำสั่งยกเลิกคำสั่งอนุญาตนั้นโดยไม่ต้องไต่สวนก็ได้ คำสั่งของศาลตามวรรคนี้ให้เป็นที่สุด
ในกรณีที่ศาลมีคำสั่งคุ้มครองประโยชน์ของเจ้าหนี้ตามคำพิพากษาตามวรรคสองแล้ว คำสั่งนั้นยังคงมีผลต่อไปเท่าที่จำเป็นเพื่อปฏิบัติตามคำพิพากษาหรือคำสั่งของศาล
English translation
If the judgment creditor wishes to have execution carried out, an ex parte application shall be filed with the court to enforce, clearly specifying:
(1) the debt that the judgment debtor has not yet complied with under the decree;
(2) the method by which the court is requested to carry out execution.
While the court has not yet determined the method of execution as requested by the judgment creditor under paragraph one, if there is a necessary cause, the judgment creditor may file an ex parte application for the court to order any measure to protect the creditor's interests beforehand, and if the court considers it appropriate, it may grant the order without an inquiry. In such a case, the judgment debtor may promptly file an application for the court to revoke the order so granted. Such an application may be made ex parte with leave of the court, and if the court considers it appropriate, it may revoke the order without an inquiry. An order of the court under this paragraph shall be final.
Where the court has ordered protection of the judgment creditor's interests under paragraph two, that order shall remain effective as far as necessary to comply with the judgment or order of the court.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 275 governs how the judgment creditor actually asks the court for execution once the right under Section 274 has arisen. The application is ex parte and must be specific on two points: the outstanding debt and the requested method, which lets the court act under Section 276. The section also builds in an interim tool, so that before the method is fixed the creditor can obtain protective measures on a necessary cause, potentially without an inquiry, balanced by the debtor's right to seek prompt revocation, again potentially without an inquiry, with the resulting order made final. In the 2017 restructuring of Book 4 this application provision was renumbered, so some earlier decisions cite the former section.
Why this matters in practice
Precision in the application matters. Because paragraph one requires you to state the requested method of execution, a bare request without specifying how you want the judgment enforced can be challenged, so identify clearly whether you seek seizure, attachment, eviction, or another measure. If assets are at risk before the court fixes the method, use the interim protection route rather than waiting. On the other side, a debtor who is hit with an interim order should move promptly to revoke it, since delay narrows the options. Getting the writ application right at the outset keeps enforcement from stalling.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 4713/2566 (2023)
An application for a writ of execution must clearly specify the method of execution requested, as required by Section 275(2); a challenge that the application failed to do so is decided on the terms of the application as filed.
The judgment debtor argued that the creditor's application for a writ was improper because it did not clearly specify the method of execution as required by Section 275(2), and that new rights had arisen under a later agreement. The trial and appellate courts dismissed the debtor's motion to revoke the application, and the Supreme Court declined to grant leave to appeal.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 3001/2568 (2025)
An application for a writ of execution presupposes that the judgment debtor has failed to comply; where the party seeking the writ had in fact complied with the compromise judgment, there is no ground under Sections 274 to 276 to obtain the writ, and a writ issued in error may be revoked.
Because the plaintiff had complied with the compromise judgment by holding under a new lease, the defendant had no basis to claim a breach or to obtain a writ of eviction under Sections 274, 275, and 276. The Supreme Court held the resulting writ was issued in error and could be revoked under Section 295 as a matter of public order.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
What must an application for a writ of execution contain?
Under Section 275, the ex parte application must clearly state the debt the judgment debtor has not yet paid and the method of execution requested, such as seizure, attachment, or eviction. Vague requests that omit the method can be challenged.
Can the creditor get protection before the court fixes the method?
Yes. Under paragraph two the creditor may apply ex parte for protective measures on a necessary cause, which the court may grant without an inquiry. The debtor may promptly apply to revoke that order, and the court's ruling on revocation is final.