Loan Agreement Enforcement and Procedural Deficiency in Summoning
Exhibit 8
Red sought to borrow money from Dark in the amount of 50,odd baht, providing a power of attorney to Chiao. Chiao executed a loan agreement and received the money on Red’s behalf. Chiao subsequently applied to borrow 50,ood baht from Dark, executing a separate personal loan agreement. Red had already paid the debt according to the loan agreement with Dark, but Chiao had not paid the debt in his own portion, thus filing a lawsuit against Chiao before the court requesting enforcement of Chiao’s debt obligation. Chiao offered a sworn statement denying having signed the loan agreement being sued upon, along with a request for the court to issue an order summoning Red as a defendant. Dark was admitted as a co-defendant. The court accepted Chiao’s sworn statement and request and immediately issued an order permitting the summons of Dark as a co-defendant. The court then considered whether the aforementioned order was proper, and if so, why. Upon Dark receiving the summons, he requested the court to revoke the aforementioned order, and if so, why. If the court revoked the order summoning Dark as a co-defendant, the court considered Chiao’s request to summon Dark as a co-defendant, and if so, why.
Regarding Chiao’s request to summon Dark as a co-defendant, it was determined that this request was not a party claim and therefore should be prohibited from the court issuing an order without providing the other party an opportunity to oppose it. It is true that when Chiao offered the request, Dark had not yet been summoned as a defendant and had not become a party according to the Civil Procedure Code, Section 17. The court must provide an opportunity to oppose the request. The court’s immediate order accepting the request was improper under the Civil Procedure Code, Section 21 (2), which aims for justice.
Because the court’s order pursuant to the request was a consideration under the Civil Procedure Code, Section 1 (8), when Dark was admitted as a co-defendant, he became a party and was entitled to exercise his rights under the Civil Procedure Code, within eight days of becoming aware of the factual basis of the claim, requesting the court to revoke the consideration was in violation of Section (3 points).
Upon revocation of the order summoning Dark as a co-defendant, the court must consider Chiao’s request. However, after the order summoning Dark as a co-defendant was revoked, Dark was no longer a party and could not oppose Chiao’s request to summon Dark as a co-defendant; he only had the opportunity to oppose Chiao’s request for the court to dismiss the request.
The year was 250.