Section 292 — When the officer must withdraw execution
Statutory text (Thai original)
ให้เจ้าพนักงานบังคับคดีถอนการบังคับคดีในกรณีดังต่อไปนี้
(๑) เมื่อศาลได้มีคำสั่งให้ถอนการบังคับคดีเนื่องจากลูกหนี้ตามคำพิพากษายื่นอุทธรณ์หรือฎีกา และได้วางเงินต่อศาลเป็นจำนวนพอชำระหนี้ตามคำพิพากษาพร้อมทั้งค่าฤชาธรรมเนียมและค่าฤชาธรรมเนียมในการบังคับคดี หรือได้หาประกันมาให้จนเป็นที่พอใจของศาลสำหรับจำนวนเงินเช่นว่านี้
(๒) เมื่อศาลได้มีคำสั่งให้ถอนการบังคับคดีเนื่องจากคำพิพากษาในระหว่างบังคับคดีได้ถูกกลับหรือถูกยก หรือหมายบังคับคดีได้ถูกเพิกถอน แต่ถ้าคำพิพากษาในระหว่างบังคับคดีนั้นได้ถูกกลับแต่เพียงบางส่วน การบังคับคดีอาจดำเนินการต่อไปจนกว่าเงินที่รวบรวมได้นั้นจะพอชำระแก่เจ้าหนี้ตามคำพิพากษา
(๓) เมื่อศาลได้แจ้งให้เจ้าพนักงานบังคับคดีทราบว่าศาลมีคำสั่งอนุญาตให้พิจารณาคดีใหม่ตามมาตรา ๑๙๙ เบญจ วรรคสาม หรือมาตรา ๒๐๗
(๔) เมื่อศาลได้มีคำสั่งให้ถอนการบังคับคดีตามมาตรา ๒๙๓
(๕) เมื่อลูกหนี้ตามคำพิพากษาได้วางเงินต่อเจ้าพนักงานบังคับคดี เพื่อเป็นการชำระหนี้ตามคำพิพากษาพร้อมทั้งค่าฤชาธรรมเนียมและค่าฤชาธรรมเนียมในการบังคับคดี
(๖) เมื่อเจ้าหนี้ตามคำพิพากษาได้แจ้งเป็นหนังสือไปยังเจ้าพนักงานบังคับคดีว่าตนสละสิทธิในการบังคับคดี ในกรณีเช่นว่านี้ เจ้าหนี้ตามคำพิพากษานั้นจะบังคับคดีแก่ลูกหนี้ตามคำพิพากษาสำหรับหนี้นั้นอีกมิได้
(๗) เมื่อเจ้าหนี้ตามคำพิพากษาได้แจ้งเป็นหนังสือไปยังเจ้าพนักงานบังคับคดีว่าตนขอถอนการบังคับคดี
English translation
The executing officer shall withdraw the execution in the following cases:
(1) where the court has ordered the withdrawal of the execution because the judgment debtor has filed an appeal or a further appeal and has deposited with the court a sum sufficient to pay the judgment debt together with the costs and the execution fees, or has furnished security to the satisfaction of the court for such sum;
(2) where the court has ordered the withdrawal of the execution because the judgment has, during the execution, been reversed or set aside, or the writ of execution has been revoked; but if the judgment has been reversed only in part, the execution may proceed until the money collected is sufficient to pay the judgment creditor;
(3) where the court has notified the executing officer that it has ordered a new trial under Section 199 quinque, paragraph three, or Section 207;
(4) where the court has ordered the withdrawal of the execution under Section 293;
(5) where the judgment debtor has deposited money with the executing officer in payment of the judgment debt together with the costs and the execution fees;
(6) where the judgment creditor has notified the executing officer in writing that he waives his right to execution. In such case, that judgment creditor may not again execute against the judgment debtor for that debt;
(7) where the judgment creditor has notified the executing officer in writing that he requests the withdrawal of the execution.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 292 opens Part 9 on withdrawal of execution and sets out an exhaustive list of grounds on which the executing officer must terminate enforcement, as distinct from merely staying it under Part 8. The grounds span court-driven withdrawals (appeal with security, reversal, new trial, and Section 293), full satisfaction by the debtor, and the creditor's own waiver or request. A notable feature is the difference between (6), waiver, which bars any further execution for that debt, and (7), a simple request to withdraw, which does not. The classification of each ground also drives who bears the execution fees under Section 169/2, a point often litigated. It reflects the 2017 renumbering.
Why this matters in practice
The choice between waiving under (6) and requesting withdrawal under (7) has lasting consequences: waive and you can never enforce that debt again, so a creditor who is only settling for now should use (7), not (6). The ground on which execution ends also decides who pays the seizure-without-sale fees under Section 169/2, so debtors and creditors both care which sub-section applies. Before signing any waiver or withdrawal, check the wording with a debt collection lawyer in Thailand.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 541/2567 (2024)
The judgment creditor who applied for a seizure bears the seizure-without-sale fee only where the execution ends on the grounds in Section 292 (2), (3), (4), (6), or (7); where seized property becomes unsaleable through a lawful act of a public authority, not the creditor's fault, and no such withdrawal ground applies, the creditor is not liable for that fee.
A seized building was demolished by the local authority under the Building Control Act, so it could not be auctioned. The Court held this was not the creditor's fault and was not a withdrawal on the grounds in Section 292 (2), (3), (4), (6), or (7), so there was no reason to make the creditor pay the fee for property seized but not sold.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 4345/2566 (2023)
Where a seized leasehold right loses its value through force majeure, not through the creditor's serious fault or bad faith, and the execution is not withdrawn on the grounds in Section 292 (2), (3), (4), (6), or (7), the creditor is not liable for the fee for property seized but not sold.
The seized leasehold right had only about two months left, so no bidders came forward before it expired. The Court found the loss of value stemmed from force majeure rather than the creditor's fault, and was not a withdrawal under Section 292 (2), (3), (4), (6), or (7), so the creditor need not pay the seizure-without-sale fee.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 643/2566 (2023)
Read with Section 169/2 paragraph four, Section 292 makes the applying judgment creditor liable for the execution fees where the execution is withdrawn for any reason other than those in Section 292 (1) and (5).
The creditor seized mortgaged property for auction, then filed a statement that it had been paid in full without clearly saying it was withdrawing. The Court explained that under Section 169/2 paragraph four with Section 292, the applying creditor bears the execution fees whenever the execution is withdrawn on grounds other than Section 292 (1) and (5).
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 is the difference between waiving execution and requesting withdrawal?
Under Section 292 (6), waiving the right to execute bars the creditor from ever enforcing that debt again, whereas under (7) a simple request to withdraw does not carry that bar.
Does paying the debt to the officer end the execution?
Yes. Section 292 (5) requires the officer to withdraw the execution once the judgment debtor deposits with the officer enough to pay the debt plus the costs and execution fees.