Section 201 — Forwarding File When Appeal Service Fails
Statutory text (Thai original)
เมื่อศาลส่งสำเนาอุทธรณ์แก่อีกฝ่ายหนึ่งไม่ได้เพราะหาตัวไม่พบ หรือหลบหนี หรือจงใจไม่รับสำเนาอุทธรณ์ หรือได้รับแก้อุทธรณ์แล้ว หรือพ้นกำหนดแก้อุทธรณ์แล้ว ให้ศาลรีบส่งสำนวนไปยังศาลอุทธรณ์เพื่อทำการพิจารณาพิพากษาต่อไป
English translation
When the court is unable to serve a copy of the appeal on the other party because that party cannot be found, has absconded, or has deliberately refused to accept the copy of the appeal, or where the reply to the appeal has already been received, or the period for replying to the appeal has expired, the court shall promptly forward the case file to the Court of Appeal for further adjudication.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 201 sits in the general provisions on appeals and keeps the appeal moving when the reply stage cannot be completed. It lists the closed set of situations that excuse service of the appeal copy: the party cannot be found, has absconded, deliberately refuses the copy, has already filed a reply, or the reply period has lapsed. It works together with Section 200, which requires that a copy of the appeal be served so the other party can reply. The Supreme Court has read the excusing grounds strictly: a failure to serve caused by the court sending the notice to the wrong address, rather than by the party genuinely being untraceable or in flight, does not satisfy Section 201, and skipping service in that situation makes the Court of Appeal proceeding defective.
Why this matters in practice
For a party who has appealed, this section is why an accused person's correct address matters: if the court records the wrong domicile and service fails there, the Court of Appeal should not proceed without a fresh attempt to serve the appeal, and a judgment issued after a defective shortcut can be set aside and remanded. An accused who is in prison has a known address, so failure to serve at the correct penal institution is not a case of being untraceable. If you are appealing or facing an appeal, keep your service address current with the court and check whether a copy of the appeal was properly served before the file went up. For help assessing an appeal record, consider an online consultation with a Thai lawyer.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 226/2567 (2024)
Where a copy of the appeal cannot be served because the summons was sent to a place that was not the defendant's lawful domicile, this is not a failure to find or a case of absconding under Section 201, and the court must serve at the defendant's actual domicile, here the central prison where the defendant was held.
The court treated a failed service as a Section 201 excuse, but the failure came from sending the notice to the wrong address rather than the defendant being untraceable. The Supreme Court held service was defective and that the appeal copy had to be served on the defendant at the central prison that was his domicile at that time.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 5868/2557 (2014)
Failure to serve a copy of the appeal merely because the defendant's house could not be located is not a case of the defendant being untraceable, absconding, or refusing under Section 201; the Court of Appeal deciding the case without serving the appeal was contrary to Section 200.
Records showed the defendant's house existed at the address in the charge and a copy could be received by a substitute, so the earlier failure to find the house did not meet Section 201. The Court of Appeal judgment was set aside and the trial court ordered to serve the appeal and send the case back for fresh adjudication.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 3244/2563 (2020)
Where the defendant was not at the given address when the appeal copy was served and was later found to be serving another case at the same trial court, this qualifies as failure to serve because the defendant could not be found, so forwarding the file to the Court of Appeal under Section 201 was proper.
The defendant argued the appeal process should be revoked, but the record showed he was absent from the service address at the relevant time. The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that this was a genuine Section 201 situation and that the handling of the appeal copy was lawful.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
What happens if a copy of the appeal cannot be delivered to the other party?
Under Section 201, if the party cannot be found, has fled, or refuses the copy, or if the reply period has expired, the court forwards the file to the Court of Appeal to proceed.
Does sending the appeal to the wrong address count as failure to serve under Section 201?
No. The Supreme Court holds that failure caused by serving the wrong address is not the same as the party being untraceable or fleeing, so the court must still attempt proper service before proceeding.