Sec 0174: Difference between revisions
From Thai Codification Codes of 1925
m 1 revision imported |
|||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
====== '''《Comments》''' ====== | ====== '''《Comments》''' ====== | ||
<u>The most plausible model</u> for this section would be: | |||
* Japanese Civil Code (1896,98), Art.149: | |||
** A judicial demand does not have the effect of interruption in case the action is dismissed or withdrawn. | |||
Revision as of 14:40, 10 May 2025
มาตรา 174
- การฟ้องคดี ท่านไม่นับว่าเป็นเหตุให้อายุความสดุดหยุดลง หากว่าคดีนั้นได้ถอนฟ้อง ละทิ้งเสีย หรือต้องยกฟ้อง
《References》
☆ quoted from “INDEX” with supplementary entries in […]: Images in Archives
- Old Text (1923): [438 No.1]
- New Text (1992): 193/17(I)
- Jp. Code (1896,98): *149
- Gr. Code (1896): 212 [=212(I)]
- Miscellaneous:
《Comments》
The most plausible model for this section would be:
- Japanese Civil Code (1896,98), Art.149:
- A judicial demand does not have the effect of interruption in case the action is dismissed or withdrawn.
