Bangkok Legal Service

Order 6. Mr. Manatee, the guarantor of this debt, was aware that Mr. Saman was being sued and that the debt was in default, but due to Mr. Manatee’s need to travel abroad, fearing the statute of limitations, he petitioned to intervene in the case and gave testimony regarding the plaintiff’s claim being time-barred, within the time period of before Mr. Saman affirmed his testimony and the court permitted Mr. Manatee to intervene. Mr. Saman testified that he had fully repaid the loan and did not participate as a co-defendant regarding the statute of limitations. The court considered it receivable that the defendant had not yet repaid the loan to the plaintiff, but the case was time-barred. The court therefore ruled to dismiss the case for lack of statute of limitations. It is ordered to determine whether the court’s order permitting Mr. Manatee to intervene and dismissing the plaintiff is correct, and if so, why. As a guarantor, a party with an interest in the outcome of the case, he has the right to intervene as a defendant together with the debtor, according to Section 57 of the Civil Procedure Code. The guarantor intervened as a defendant together with the debtor and affirmed his testimony before the time period for testimony expired, and before the defendant filed a response. The defendant jointly filed a statement of defense regarding the statute of limitations, which was not another right except the right the defendant possessed while intervening, and it did not violate the rights of other defendants according to Section 58 of the Civil Procedure Code. He filed a statement of defense before the defendant filed a statement of defense and the court had already accepted it. And when the case was time-barred, as testified by the guarantor, the court then had the benefit of the guarantor’s argument and ruled to dismiss the case, even though the defendant had not testified.