Section 321 — Court order compelling a third party to pay
Statutory text (Thai original)
ถ้าบุคคลภายนอกไม่ชำระหนี้ตามคำสั่งอายัดของศาลหรือเจ้าพนักงานบังคับคดีตามมาตรา ๓๑๖ ให้เจ้าพนักงานบังคับคดีแจ้งให้เจ้าหนี้ตามคำพิพากษาทราบ ในกรณีเช่นว่านี้ เจ้าหนี้ตามคำพิพากษาอาจยื่นคำร้องต่อศาลให้บังคับบุคคลภายนอกนั้นปฏิบัติการชำระหนี้ตามที่เจ้าพนักงานบังคับคดีมีคำสั่งหรือชำระค่าสินไหมทดแทนเพื่อการไม่ชำระหนี้แก่เจ้าพนักงานบังคับคดีก็ได้ เมื่อศาลทำการไต่สวนแล้วถ้าเป็นที่พอใจว่าสิทธิเรียกร้องของลูกหนี้ตามคำพิพากษานั้นมีอยู่จริงและอาจบังคับได้ จะมีคำสั่งให้บุคคลภายนอกปฏิบัติการชำระหนี้ตามที่เจ้าพนักงานบังคับคดีมีคำสั่งหรือให้ชำระค่าสินไหมทดแทนตามจำนวนที่เห็นสมควรก็ได้ ถ้าบุคคลภายนอกนั้นมิได้ปฏิบัติตามคำสั่งของศาล เจ้าหนี้ตามคำพิพากษาอาจร้องขอให้ศาลบังคับคดีแก่บุคคลภายนอกนั้นเสมือนหนึ่งว่าเป็นลูกหนี้ตามคำพิพากษาก็ได้
English translation
If the third party does not perform the obligation in accordance with the attachment order of the court or the execution officer under Section 316, the execution officer shall notify the judgment creditor. In such a case, the judgment creditor may file a motion with the court to compel that third party to perform the obligation as ordered by the execution officer, or to pay compensation for the non-performance to the execution officer. When the court has held an inquiry, if it is satisfied that the claim of the judgment debtor genuinely exists and is enforceable, it may order the third party to perform the obligation as ordered by the execution officer, or to pay compensation in such amount as it thinks fit. If that third party does not comply with the order of the court, the judgment creditor may apply to the court to enforce against that third party as though he were a judgment debtor.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 321 opens Part 5 and provides the enforcement teeth behind an attachment of claims. Where the third party disregards an attachment order under Section 316, the execution officer informs the creditor, who may move the court to compel performance or to order compensation for the non-performance. The court holds an inquiry and acts only if satisfied that the debtor's claim genuinely exists and is enforceable, echoing Section 317, under which even a disputed claim may be attached but must be proven before payment is compelled. If the third party defies the court's order, it may be enforced against as though it were a judgment debtor. The provision was renumbered by the Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act (No. 30) B.E. 2560 (2017).
Why this matters in practice
This is the remedy when a bank, employer, or debtor's debtor simply ignores an attachment order. You cannot skip straight to enforcing against the third party: there must first be a valid attachment under Section 316, then a court inquiry that the claim genuinely exists, before the third party can be compelled or ordered to pay compensation and, ultimately, treated like a judgment debtor. Getting the sequence right matters, because courts reject petitions that jump the steps, which is a common pitfall a debt collection lawyer helps you avoid.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 227/2567 (2024)
Where a garnishee third party fails to remit the debtor's attached bank deposits, the judgment creditor may move under Section 321 to compel the third party to remit the money or to pay compensation equal to the attached amount.
The judgment creditors sought to have the third party remit the debtor's attached bank deposits, totaling 289,000 baht, or pay compensation in that amount, invoking Section 321. The decision illustrates the Section 321 route for compelling a third party that does not comply with an attachment order.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1784/2563 (2020)
The Section 321 procedure to compel a third party to satisfy an attachment order presupposes that the debtor's claim has first been validly attached; seeking to compel the third party without first attaching the claim is an out-of-order proceeding.
The creditor asked the court, through the execution officer, to compel a province to comply with the officer's attachment order under Section 321 so it would become liable like a judgment debtor, without first attaching the debtor's claim. The Supreme Court treated this as skipping the required step of attaching the claim, an improperly conducted proceeding.
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 if a bank ignores an attachment order?
Under Section 321 the execution officer notifies the creditor, who may ask the court to compel the third party to pay or to pay compensation. If the third party still refuses, it can be enforced against as though it were the judgment debtor.
Can a creditor go straight to enforcing against the third party?
No. There must first be a valid attachment under Section 316 and a court inquiry confirming the claim exists and is enforceable; petitions that skip these steps are rejected.