Section 73 bis — Service by registered or express mail
Statutory text (Thai original)
คำคู่ความหรือเอกสารที่เจ้าพนักงานศาลเป็นผู้ส่งไม่ว่าการส่งนั้นจะเป็นหน้าที่ของศาลจัดการส่งเองหรือคู่ความมีหน้าที่จัดการนำส่งก็ตาม ศาลอาจสั่งให้ส่งโดยทางไปรษณีย์ลงทะเบียนตอบรับ หรือโดยทางไปรษณีย์ด่วนพิเศษในประเทศก็ได้ โดยให้คู่ความฝ่ายที่มีหน้าที่นำส่งเป็นผู้เสียค่าใช้จ่าย กรณีเช่นนี้ ให้ถือว่าคำคู่ความหรือเอกสารที่ส่งโดยเจ้าพนักงานไปรษณีย์ มีผลเสมือนเจ้าพนักงานศาลเป็นผู้ส่ง และให้นำบทบัญญัติมาตรา ๗๔ มาตรา ๗๖ และมาตรา ๗๗ มาใช้บังคับโดยอนุโลม
English translation
For a pleading or document that is served by a court officer, whether the service is the court's own duty to arrange or a duty of a party to arrange, the court may order it served by registered mail with acknowledgment of receipt, or by domestic express mail, with the party who has the duty to arrange service bearing the cost. In such a case, a pleading or document served by a postal officer shall have the same effect as if served by a court officer, and the provisions of Section 74, Section 76, and Section 77 shall apply mutatis mutandis.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 73 bis modernizes officer service by allowing the court to route it through registered mail with acknowledgment or domestic express mail, at the cost of the party responsible for service. The key effect is one of equivalence: delivery by the postal officer is deemed to be service by a court officer, and the general service rules of Sections 74, 76, and 77 are read in mutatis mutandis. Because those rules cover timing, service on adults at the address, and service at other places, mail service must still respect their substance, though a special statute may displace this general regime with its own service procedure.
Why this matters in practice
Registered mail service is common and convenient, but it is only as good as its documentation: the acknowledgment slip showing who received it and when is your proof, and the receiver at the address must qualify under Section 76. If a defendant later claims they never got the summons, the return receipt is what settles it. When you rely on mail service to start the clock for an answer, keep the slip and confirm the recipient qualifies.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 8368/2563 (2020)
Section 73 bis, which makes Sections 74, 76, and 77 apply mutatis mutandis, states the general rules for service of pleadings; where a special statute prescribes its own registered mail service to a person's last known address, that special procedure applies and the general rules of Section 73 bis need not be followed.
The anti money laundering statute specifically required the Secretary General to serve by registered mail with acknowledgment to the person's last known address. The court held this special procedure meant the service need not follow Section 73 bis and its incorporated general rules, such as service at the domicile or on an adult over twenty years old.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 5741/2559 (2016)
Where a postal officer delivers a notice at the recipient's domicile to a person over twenty years old, service is lawful under Section 73 bis together with Section 76 paragraph one, and the recipient is expected to pass on such an important registered item without delay.
A postal officer delivered the notice of the appellate judgment date at the defendants' domicile to a relative over twenty years old, who received it more than fifty days before the hearing. The court held service was lawful under Section 73 bis with Section 76 paragraph one, and the recipient should have realized the importance of the registered court item.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 8058/2553 (2010)
Where an enforcement officer serves an auction notice by registered return mail and it is received by the recipient's own employee, the service of that notice is lawful under Section 73 bis.
The enforcement office sent the auction notice to the claimant bank by registered return mail, and the bank's own employee received it. The court held this was lawful service of the notice under Section 73 bis, supported by the record and by the claimant's own witness who admitted the notice reached the bank's head office.
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 a summons be served by registered mail in Thailand?
Yes. Under Section 73 bis the court may order service by registered mail with acknowledgment of receipt or by domestic express mail, and delivery by the postal officer has the same effect as service by a court officer.
Do the ordinary service rules apply to mail service?
Yes. Section 73 bis makes Sections 74, 76, and 77 apply mutatis mutandis, so mail service must still respect the rules on timing, service on a qualifying adult at the address, and service at other places.