Section 4 bis: Court for immovable property claims

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 8036/2561 (2018)

   Where a plaint concerning immovable property in the court area has been properly accepted under section 4 bis and section 18 of the Courts of Justice Organisation Act, a later amendment that adds a claim in tort and no longer asks for transfer of the property is a change of circumstances affecting the filing of the case in a court with jurisdiction. Under section 173 paragraph two (2) such a change does not deprive the court that has already accepted the plaint of its power to go on and decide - where, as here, registration of the transfer would take place in its area, some of the persons and evidence concerned are there, the parties never objected, and nothing indicates that the parties would be inconvenienced or the case less correctly, quickly, efficiently and fairly managed.

   The plaintiff sued for registration of the transfer of ten plots of land in Si Racha, which the first court properly accepted under section 4 bis and section 18 of the Courts of Justice Organisation Act. After the defendant auctioned the land to a third party, the plaintiff amended to add a claim in tort and no longer sought transfer of the property. The first court then raised jurisdiction of its own motion and dismissed the claim. The Supreme Court held the amendment to be a change of circumstances relating to filing in a court with jurisdiction, which under section 173 paragraph two (2) does not deprive the court that has already accepted the plaint of its power to continue: registration would take place in its area, some of the persons and evidence were there, the parties had never objected, and nothing indicated inconvenience or any loss of correctness, speed, efficiency or fairness in managing the case. The Supreme Court had in any event already ordered the amended plaint to be tried together with the original, so dismissing on jurisdiction was wrong. The Court also restated the costs order below, which had been unclear as to which instance it covered.

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 6574/2559 (2016)

   A claim to enforce a mortgage over land is a plaint concerning immovable property under Section 4 bis, because enforcement runs against the property itself, so the plaintiff may sue in the court where the land is situated.

   The mortgaged land lay within the trial court's area. The court held that a claim to enforce the mortgage is one concerning immovable property, since it requires execution against the property, so the plaintiffs could properly sue where the land was situated under Section 4 bis.

3. Supreme Court Judgment No. 10342/2551 (2008)

   Section 4 bis gives the plaintiff a choice of forum for a claim concerning immovable property: the court where the property is situated or the court where the defendant is domiciled; filing at the defendant's domicile is lawful even though it is not where the property lies.

   The plaintiff mortgagee sued to have a transferee redeem the mortgage under Civil and Commercial Code Section 737. Although this concerned immovable property, the court held Section 4 bis let the plaintiff choose to sue where the defendant was domiciled rather than where the property was situated.

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