Section 44 — Summons to replace a deceased party
Statutory text (Thai original)
คำสั่งให้หมายเรียกบุคคลใดเข้ามาแทนผู้มรณะนั้น จะต้องกำหนดระยะเวลาพอสมควรเพื่อให้บุคคลนั้นมีโอกาสคัดค้านในศาลว่าตนมิได้เป็นทายาทของผู้มรณะ หรือมิได้เป็นผู้จัดการทรัพย์มรดกหรือผู้ปกครองทรัพย์มรดกนั้นทายาท ผู้จัดการทรัพย์มรดก หรือบุคคลผู้ถูกเรียกไม่จำต้องปฏิบัติตามหมายเช่นว่านั้นก่อนระยะเวลาที่กฎหมายกำหนดไว้เพื่อการยอมรับฐานะนั้นได้ล่วงพ้นไปแล้วถ้าบุคคลที่ถูกศาลหมายเรียกนั้น ยินยอมรับเข้ามาเป็นคู่ความแทนผู้มรณะ ให้ศาลจดรายงานพิสดารไว้และดำเนินคดีต่อไปถ้าบุคคลนั้นไม่ยินยอมหรือไม่มาศาล ให้ศาลทำการไต่สวนตามที่เห็นสมควร ถ้าศาลเห็นว่าหมายเรียกนั้นมีเหตุผลฟังได้ ก็ให้ออกคำสั่งตั้งบุคคลผู้ถูกเรียกเป็นคู่ความแทนผู้มรณะแล้วดำเนินคดีต่อไป ถ้าศาลเห็นว่าข้อคัดค้านของบุคคลผู้ถูกเรียกมีเหตุผลฟังได้ ก็ให้ศาลสั่งเพิกถอนหมายเรียกนั้นเสีย และถ้าคู่ความฝ่ายใดฝ่ายหนึ่งไม่สามารถเรียกทายาทอันแท้จริง หรือผู้จัดการทรัพย์มรดกหรือบุคคลที่ปกครองทรัพย์มรดกของผู้มรณะเข้ามาเป็นคู่ความแทนผู้มรณะได้ภายในกำหนดเวลาหนึ่งปี ก็ให้ศาลมีคำสั่งตามที่เห็นสมควรเพื่อประโยชน์แห่งความยุติธรรม
English translation
An order summoning any person to enter in place of the deceased must fix a reasonable period so that such person has the opportunity to object before the court that he is not an heir of the deceased, or is not the administrator of the estate or the custodian of the estate. The heir, the administrator of the estate, or the person summoned is not bound to comply with such a summons before the period fixed by law for the acceptance of that status has elapsed. If the person summoned by the court consents to enter as a party in place of the deceased, the court shall make a detailed record thereof and proceed with the case. If such person does not consent or does not attend the court, the court shall hold an inquiry as it thinks fit. If the court is of the opinion that the summons is well founded, it shall issue an order appointing the person summoned as a party in place of the deceased and proceed with the case. If the court is of the opinion that the objection of the person summoned is well founded, it shall order the summons to be revoked. And if either party is unable to summon the true heir, the administrator of the estate, or the custodian of the deceased's estate to enter as a party in place of the deceased within the period of one year, the court shall make such order as it thinks fit for the benefit of justice.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 44 governs the compulsory substitution route, complementing the voluntary application under section 43 and the one-year framework in section 42. A summons to replace a deceased party must allow the person a reasonable period to object that they are not the heir, administrator, or custodian, and no one is bound to comply before the statutory period for accepting that status has passed. If the person consents, the court records it in detail and proceeds; if not, the court holds an inquiry and either appoints them or revokes the summons. The final paragraph gives the court a residual power to make any just order where no true successor can be summoned within one year. By its own terms this machinery applies to cases still pending; the courts have distinguished the enforcement stage, where a deceased judgment debtor's obligations simply pass to the heirs under substantive succession law without the sections 42 and 44 substitution procedure.
Why this matters in practice
If you receive a court summons to step into a deceased person's lawsuit, you are not automatically bound: you have a fair window to object that you are not the heir, administrator, or custodian, and you are not required to act before the statutory period for accepting that status has run. Conversely, if you are trying to keep a case alive, use this route to bring in the successor, but note that if you cannot identify a true heir or administrator within one year the court will make its own just order, which may include striking the case. Note the important distinction at the enforcement stage: when a judgment debtor dies, their obligations pass to the heirs under succession law and the sections 42 and 44 substitution steps do not apply in the same way. A debt collection lawyer can advise on enforcing against a deceased debtor's estate.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 19128/2555 (2012)
When a judgment debtor dies during enforcement, the duties and liability pass to the heirs under succession law; this is not a pending case requiring the sections 42 and 44 substitution procedure, so an heir cannot simply apply to enter as a party unless a genuine dispute has arisen at the enforcement stage.
After the case became final and the first defendant died during enforcement, the Supreme Court held that the first defendant's duties and liability passed to the heirs under sections 1599 and 1600 of the Civil and Commercial Code merely so that enforcement could be completed. This was not a pending case in which the court had to follow sections 42 and 44, so the applicant could not simply apply to enter as a party in place of the deceased and seek to set aside enforcement; such a substitution at the enforcement stage requires a genuine dispute of right arising there.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 2532/2523 (1980)
Where a debtor dies during enforcement of a final judgment, duties and liability pass to the heirs under succession law, so the court may issue enforcement against the estate administrator without first summoning them to be substituted as a party under sections 42 and 44.
A final judgment ordered the defendant to accept payment and transfer ownership of land and a row house to the plaintiff, and the defendant died during enforcement. The Supreme Court held that the duties and liability passed to the heirs under sections 1599 and 1600 of the Civil and Commercial Code, so this was not a pending case requiring sections 42 and 44. The trial court could therefore issue an order of enforcement against the defendant's estate administrator without first summoning or ordering the administrator to be substituted as a party.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 2376/2545 (2002)
When a defendant dies during enforcement, duties and liability pass to the heirs under succession law merely to complete enforcement, and this is not a pending case that must follow sections 42 and 44.
The trial court had ordered the defendant to deliver leased land and buildings, or else pay a sum with interest, and the defendant died during enforcement. The Supreme Court held that the duties and liability passed to the heirs under sections 1599 and 1600 of the Civil and Commercial Code only so that enforcement could be completed, and this was not a pending case requiring the substitution procedure under sections 42 and 44.
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 I object if the court summons me to replace a deceased party?
Yes. Under section 44, the summons must give you a reasonable period to object that you are not the heir, administrator, or custodian. If you object, the court holds an inquiry and either appoints you or revokes the summons.
What if no true heir can be brought in within one year?
Under the final part of section 44, if either party cannot summon the true heir, administrator, or custodian within one year, the court makes whatever order it thinks fit for the benefit of justice, which may include disposing of the case.
Do sections 42 and 44 apply when a debtor dies during enforcement?
Generally no. The courts have held that when a judgment debtor dies during enforcement, the obligations pass to the heirs under succession law, so this is not a pending case requiring the sections 42 and 44 substitution procedure.