Section 86 — Court control over evidence
Statutory text (Thai original)
เมื่อศาลเห็นว่าพยานหลักฐานใดเป็นพยานหลักฐานที่รับฟังไม่ได้ก็ดี หรือเป็นพยานหลักฐานที่รับฟังได้ แต่ได้ยื่นฝ่าฝืนต่อบทบัญญัติแห่งประมวลกฎหมายนี้ ให้ศาลปฏิเสธไม่รับพยานหลักฐานนั้นไว้เมื่อศาลเห็นว่าพยานหลักฐานใดฟุ่มเฟือยเกินสมควรหรือประวิงให้ชักช้าหรือไม่เกี่ยวแก่ประเด็น ให้ศาลมีอำนาจงดการสืบพยานหลักฐานเช่นว่านั้น หรือพยานหลักฐานอื่นต่อไปเมื่อศาลเห็นว่าเพื่อประโยชน์แห่งความยุติธรรมเป็นการจำเป็นที่จะต้องนำพยานหลักฐานอื่นอันเกี่ยวกับประเด็นในคดีมาสืบเพิ่มเติม ให้ศาลทำการสืบพยานหลักฐานต่อไป ซึ่งอาจรวมทั้งการที่จะเรียกพยานที่สืบแล้วมาสืบใหม่ด้วย โดยไม่ต้องมีฝ่ายใดร้องขอ
English translation
Where the court is of the view that any evidence is inadmissible, or is admissible but has been submitted in breach of the provisions of this Code, the court shall refuse to admit that evidence.
Where the court is of the view that any evidence is unduly superfluous, or causes undue delay, or is irrelevant to the issues, the court has the power to dispense with the taking of such evidence or of further evidence.
Where the court is of the view that, in the interest of justice, it is necessary to take additional evidence relating to the issues in the case, the court shall proceed to take such evidence, which may include recalling a witness already examined to be examined again, without any party having to so request.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 86 gives the court three linked powers over evidence. First, it must refuse evidence that is inadmissible or submitted in breach of the Code. Second, it may dispense with evidence that is unduly superfluous, dilatory, or irrelevant, controlling the length and focus of the trial. Third, in the interest of justice it may take additional relevant evidence on its own motion, including recalling a witness, without a party's request. These powers complement the right to adduce evidence in Section 85 and the admissibility conditions in Section 87, and give the court an active role in shaping the evidentiary record.
Why this matters in practice
In practice this section is why a court may cut short repetitive or off-point evidence, so pad your witness list at your peril: superfluous or irrelevant proof can be refused and will not help. It also means the judge can call for evidence neither side offered when fairness demands it, which can change the shape of a case. Present focused, relevant evidence and be ready for the court to take an active role. For an overview of the courtroom process, see what to know before you go to court in Thailand.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 2582/2564 (2021)
Under Section 86 paragraph two, the court may dispense with taking evidence that causes undue delay, such as ceasing to examine a witness who has disappeared and cannot be located despite the party's efforts to find them.
Where the plaintiff wished to examine a witness but that witness had left her registered address and could not be found despite efforts to trace her, the trial court ordered the examination of that witness to be dispensed with under Section 86 paragraph two. The court treated the disappearance as a proper reason and went on to consider related hearsay-admissibility questions.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1480/2563 (2020)
Evidence adduced beyond the pleadings and the framed issues is irrelevant under Section 86 paragraph two and cannot be admitted, being outside the facts the parties must prove.
Because good faith of the third defendant was not a framed issue, evidence the plaintiffs adduced to show the defendant took the mortgage in bad faith went beyond the pleadings and outside the issues. The court held such evidence was irrelevant under Section 86 paragraph two and could not be admitted, aligning with the requirement in Section 87 (1) that evidence relate to facts the parties must prove.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 3535/2560 (2017)
Under Section 86 last paragraph, where it is necessary in the interest of justice, the court may on its own motion call for additional evidence relating to the issues, including summoning documents, without any party's request.
Where there was reasonable doubt whether the deceased had in fact made the will relied on by the petitioner, the court held that the trial court had power under Section 86 last paragraph to summon the will and take it in evidence on its own initiative. The court quoted the paragraph in full and rejected the argument that the petitioner had been denied a chance to adduce further evidence.
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 court stop a party from calling more witnesses?
Yes. Under Section 86 paragraph two, the court may dispense with taking evidence that is unduly superfluous, causes delay, or is irrelevant to the issues.
Can a court take evidence on its own without a party's request?
Yes. Under Section 86 last paragraph, where necessary in the interest of justice, the court may take additional relevant evidence, including recalling a witness, on its own motion.