Section 41: Severing the civil case
Statutory text (Thai original)
ถ้าการพิจารณาคดีแพ่งจักทำให้การพิจารณาคดีอาญาเนิ่นช้าหรือติดขัด ศาลมีอำนาจสั่งให้แยกคดีแพ่งออกจากคดีอาญา และพิจารณาต่างหากโดยศาลที่มีอำนาจชำระ
English translation
If the trial of the civil case would cause the trial of the criminal case to be delayed or obstructed, the court has the power to order the civil case to be separated from the criminal case and to be tried separately by the court having jurisdiction.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified. Always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 41 is the safety valve for the joinder allowed by Section 40. Where a connected civil claim is heard alongside the criminal case but would delay or obstruct the criminal trial, the court may sever the civil part and send it to be tried separately by the competent court. The order to sever is an interlocutory order under Section 196, so it is generally not appealable on its own until the case is decided. Severance keeps the criminal trial efficient without depriving the injured party of the civil remedy, and the severed civil case still runs under the Civil Procedure Code as directed by Section 40.
Why this matters in practice
If your damages claim is filed with the criminal case, be ready for the court to sever it when it is large, complex, or would slow the criminal trial, in which case it proceeds separately as a civil matter. Because the severance order is interlocutory, you usually cannot appeal it immediately; you object and raise it when the case is finally decided. Plan for the possibility that your civil claim runs on its own timeline, and get advice on managing both tracks; choosing an experienced litigator helps.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 888/2490 (1947)
An order directing the plaintiff to separate the civil part from the criminal part under Section 41 is an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 196.
In a fraud case within the Kwaeng Court's jurisdiction, the court accepted the criminal charge but ruled the restitution claim exceeded its power and ordered it severed under Section 41. The court treated that order to separate the civil part as an interlocutory order under Section 196.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 34/2536 (1993)
In a civil case connected with a criminal case the court must take the facts as found in the criminal judgment. Where a defendant dies, the criminal right against him is extinguished and the court cannot give judgment on the criminal part as to him, so the facts found in the criminal judgment about the other defendants cannot be used in the civil part against him. Bringing in the administrator of his estate as a party for the civil part is therefore not convenient for the trial, and the court will not allow it.
The fourth defendant died, the criminal case against him was struck off and the criminal right against him lapsed. The plaintiff asked to bring in the administrator of his estate as a party for the civil part or, failing that, to have the civil claim against the remaining defendants and the administrator severed and refiled under Section 41. The Supreme Court affirmed the refusal: because the facts found in the criminal judgment about the other defendants could not be applied to the deceased defendant, bringing in the administrator was not convenient for the trial, and the alternative request under Section 41 did not succeed either.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Cited in 3 Supreme Court decisions (1947 to 1993)
Selected citing decisions
- Decision 888/2490 (1947)
- Decision 51/2492 (1949)
- Decision 34/2536 (1993)
This list is selected automatically, weighted towards judgments that turn on this section rather than ones that merely recite it when passing sentence. It has not yet been reviewed by the firm.
Counted across the firm's corpus of 83,652 Supreme Court decisions, 1921 to 2026. The count is complete; the stated year range trims rare outliers so it describes where the citations actually sit. These figures are computed by us and are not official court statistics. How we count these, and what we measured
Frequently asked questions
Can the court separate the civil claim from the criminal case?
Yes. Under Section 41, if hearing the connected civil claim would delay or obstruct the criminal trial, the court may order it severed and tried separately by the court with jurisdiction.
Can I appeal an order severing the civil case immediately?
Generally no. An order to sever under Section 41 is an interlocutory order under Section 196, so you usually raise your objection only when the case is finally decided.
Does severing the civil case affect my right to damages?
No. Severance under Section 41 only changes where and when the civil claim is heard. The claim continues separately under the Civil Procedure Code, so your right to seek damages remains.
Related guides on ThaiLawOnline
Cite this section
-
Plain citation
Criminal Procedure Code, s. 41 (Thailand) -
Academic citation
Criminal Procedure Code (Thailand), s. 41. ThaiLawOnline, https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-criminal-procedure-code/section-41/ (accessed 1 September 2026). -
Thai citation
ป.วิ.อ. มาตรา 41 -
Permalink
https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-criminal-procedure-code/section-41/ -
Embed on your site
<blockquote cite="https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-criminal-procedure-code/section-41/"><p>If the trial of the civil case would cause the trial of the criminal case to be delayed or obstructed, the court has the power to order the civil case to be separated from the criminal case and to be tried separately by the court…</p><footer>Criminal Procedure Code, s. 41 (Thailand): <a href="https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-criminal-procedure-code/section-41/">ThaiLawOnline</a></footer></blockquote>
The Thai text is authoritative. The English is an unofficial translation by ThaiLawOnline, free to reuse with attribution.