Plaintiff’s Lack of Authority to Initiate Suit Against Defendant
Exhibit 2. Mr. Chob is the Plaintiff and Mr. Tham is the Defendant, regarding a claim of twenty thousand baht. Mr. Tham, the Defendant, testified in opposition to the case, denying that he had ever purchased tea and owed money to the Plaintiff. The Court conducted an initial examination of the evidence at two locations prior to the examination of the Plaintiff’s witnesses. A motion to amend the complaint was filed, requesting an increase in the amount claimed to forty thousand baht, citing a lapse in memory. Mr. Tham, the Defendant, also filed a motion to amend his testimony, stating that Mr. Chob, the Plaintiff, lacked the authority to sue. The Court ordered the rejection of the Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint and the Defendant’s motion to amend, citing Judgment No. 1326/2512, which states that if the Court orders an amendment to the complaint or an amendment to the testimony, the Court must reject any such motion if the Plaintiff did not amend the complaint prior to the hearing. The argument regarding a lapse in memory and the request to increase the amount claimed are not relevant to the orderly proceedings. Regarding the Defendant’s request to amend his testimony, alleging that the Plaintiff lacked the authority to sue, the Court permitted the Defendant to amend his testimony.