Section 59 — Joinder of co-plaintiffs and co-defendants
Statutory text (Thai original)
บุคคลตั้งแต่สองคนขึ้นไป อาจเป็นคู่ความในคดีเดียวกันได้ โดยเป็นโจทก์ร่วมหรือจำเลยร่วม ถ้าหากปรากฏว่าบุคคลเหล่านั้นมีผลประโยชน์ร่วมกันในมูลความแห่งคดี แต่ห้ามมิให้ถือว่าบุคคลเหล่านั้นแทนซึ่งกันและกัน เว้นแต่มูลความแห่งคดีเป็นการชำระหนี้ ซึ่งแบ่งแยกจากกันมิได้ หรือได้มีกฎหมายบัญญัติไว้ดังนั้นโดยชัดแจ้ง ในกรณีเช่นนี้ ให้ถือว่าบุคคลเหล่านั้นแทนซึ่งกันและกันเพียงเท่าที่จะกล่าวต่อไปนี้
(๑) บรรดากระบวนพิจารณาซึ่งได้ทำโดย หรือทำต่อคู่ความร่วมคนหนึ่งนั้นให้ถือว่าได้ทำโดย หรือทำต่อ คู่ความร่วมคนอื่น ๆ ด้วย เว้นแต่กระบวนพิจารณาที่คู่ความร่วมคนหนึ่งกระทำไปเป็นที่เสื่อมเสียแก่คู่ความร่วมคนอื่น ๆ
(๒) การเลื่อนคดีหรือการงดพิจารณาคดีซึ่งเกี่ยวกับคู่ความร่วมคนหนึ่งนั้น ให้ใช้ถึงคู่ความร่วมคนอื่น ๆ ด้วย
English translation
Two or more persons may be parties in the same case, as co-plaintiffs or co-defendants, if it appears that they have a common interest in the subject matter of the case; but they shall not be treated as representing one another, unless the subject matter of the case is the performance of an obligation that is indivisible, or the law expressly so provides. In such a case, they shall be treated as representing one another only to the following extent: (1) all procedural steps taken by, or against, one co-party shall be treated as taken by, or against, the other co-parties as well, except a procedural step taken by one co-party that is prejudicial to the other co-parties; (2) a postponement of the case or a stay of the proceedings relating to one co-party shall apply to the other co-parties as well.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 59 governs joinder of parties. Two or more people may join as co-plaintiffs or co-defendants where they share a common interest in the subject matter. The default is independence: co-parties do not represent one another, so each stands or falls on its own conduct. The exception, of real practical weight, arises where the obligation is indivisible or a statute expressly provides for representation. Then two effects follow: under (1), procedural steps by or against one co-party bind the others, except a step that is prejudicial to them, and under (2), a postponement or stay for one extends to all. This provision interacts closely with the Civil and Commercial Code on joint and several obligations, and the courts read it with CCC section 295 to separate effects that are personal to one debtor from those shared by all.
Why this matters in practice
For joint debtors this section can be decisive. Where the obligation is indivisible, a defense such as prescription raised by one co-defendant is treated as raised by the others, so one active defendant can protect the group; but favourable acts do not always carry over, and a part payment by one debtor may interrupt prescription only as to that debtor under the Civil and Commercial Code. When you sue or are sued alongside others, decide early who leads the defense and coordinate, because a prejudicial step by one co-party does not bind the rest. If you are pursuing several debtors together, our debt collection service can structure the claim so joinder and any indivisibility work in your favour.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 2033/2567 (2024)
Where co-defendants are joint debtors on an indivisible obligation, a limitation defense raised by one is, under section 59(1), treated as raised by the other; but a part payment by one debtor, being personal to him under CCC section 295, interrupts prescription only as to that debtor.
The defendants were joint debtors on an indivisible obligation. The Supreme Court held that the limitation defense raised by the second defendant was, under section 59(1), treated as raised by the first as well; but the second defendant's part payment interrupted prescription only as to himself under CCC section 295 and did not affect the first, so limitation ran separately for the first defendant.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1478/2565 (2022)
Parties with a common interest in an indivisible obligation are co-parties who, under section 59, represent one another to the stated extent, including that procedural steps by or against one are treated as taken by or against the others.
The defendant's counterclaim and summons sought to compel the plaintiff and the joined plaintiff to return several titled plots. The Supreme Court treated them as persons with a common interest in an indivisible obligation and applied section 59, under which co-parties represent one another to the stated extent, so that procedural steps by or against one are treated as taken by or against the others.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 5467/2560 (2017)
On an indivisible claim, a limitation defense raised by some co-defendants is, under section 59(1), treated as raised by the remaining co-defendants as well.
The plaintiff's claim against all defendants involved in extending credit to the same customer was a single, indivisible claim. The Supreme Court held that where some defendants raised limitation, the remaining defendants were treated under section 59(1), applied through section 31 of the Labour Court Act, as having raised it too, so the claim was time-barred as to all.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
When can people be co-plaintiffs or co-defendants in one case?
Under section 59, two or more people may join as co-plaintiffs or co-defendants when they share a common interest in the subject matter of the case. Normally they act independently and do not represent one another.
If one joint debtor raises a defense, does it help the others?
It can. Where the obligation is indivisible, section 59(1) treats a step such as a prescription defense raised by one co-defendant as raised by the others too, unless the step is prejudicial to them. Favourable acts do not always carry over, so check each debtor's position.