Freezing a Koh Phangan property mid-lawsuit: the Civil Procedure Code injunction that stops a sale before judgment

A boundary fight, a co-owner who won't agree to a partition, a seller who pockets earnest money and then tries to sell the same plot to someone else, a dispute over who controls a 49/51 company's land — every one of these can end up in a Thai court, and the plaintiff's most urgent question is rarely about winning; it's about stopping the other side from selling, mortgaging or transferring the exact property before the case is decided. Thailand's Civil Procedure Code, Sections 254, 257 and 264, is the mechanism — a court-ordered freeze, distinct from the private, self-executing Land Code Section 83 caveat already covered on this site, which needs no lawsuit at all and lapses automatically within 30 days.

What Section 254 lets a court order before judgment

• Seizure or attachment of property — the court can seize or attach the defendant's assets, including the property actually in dispute, where there's a real risk it would otherwise be put out of reach.
• A provisional injunction against disposal — the court can prohibit the defendant from transferring, selling, removing or disposing of the property in dispute specifically, the core tool for freezing a single Koh Phangan title deed while a case over it is pending.
• Broader protective measures under Section 264 — a party can also ask the court, at any point during trial, for whatever measure genuinely protects their interest or a future judgment's enforcement — for example, ordering disputed earnest money or sale proceeds deposited with the court rather than left with either side.

How the order actually stops a Land Office transfer

An injunction is only as strong as its enforcement. Section 257 requires the court to notify its order to "the registrar, competent authority or person competent under law" — for real property, the Land Office — which must then record the order in the register. In practice, that means the title deed itself carries an annotation a Land Office official has to check before processing any transfer, mortgage or other registration while the case is pending; an official who ignores a recorded court order isn't making a mere paperwork error.

How a court decides whether to grant it

• A prima facie case. The applicant has to show the underlying claim has genuine merit, not just assert that a dispute exists.
• A real, demonstrable risk of harm. Courts look for concrete evidence the defendant is likely to sell, transfer or otherwise dissipate the property — not a hypothetical worry.
• Ex parte filing in urgent cases. An application can be made together with the initial complaint or at any point before judgment, and in urgent circumstances a court can grant it without first hearing the defendant's side — though the defendant can then contest it.
• A security bond. Applicants are commonly required to post security against the harm the defendant would suffer if the injunction later turns out to have been wrongly granted.

How this differs from the tools already covered on this site

The Section 83 caveat is a private, administrative hold — no lawsuit required, self-executing, and it lapses automatically after 30 days unless the claimant actually files suit. This Civil Procedure Code injunction is the opposite in almost every respect: it exists only because a court case is pending or about to be filed, it's granted (or refused) by a judge applying an evidentiary test, and it lasts for as long as the litigation does, not a fixed 30 days. The two aren't alternatives — a caveat is often the first, fast, non-judicial move, and this injunction is what a claimant who then actually files suit uses to keep that protection going once the caveat's 30 days run out. It's also distinct from buying at a Legal Execution Department auction, which covers post-judgment enforcement, not the pre-judgment freeze covered here.

What happens when the case ends

An interim order doesn't automatically survive the underlying lawsuit. Practitioner commentary on Section 260 describes interim relief tied to a claim the applicant ultimately loses as lapsing shortly after judgment — commonly cited as within about seven days — unless the court's own judgment addresses it separately. A defendant who successfully defends a case should confirm the annotation is actually removed from the title deed at the Land Office, rather than assuming it disappears on its own.

For a buyer or co-owner facing a genuine dispute over a Koh Phangan title — not just a routine due-diligence check — this injunction, not a caveat alone, is usually what a lawyer reaches for once a case is actually filed. Whether it's worth pursuing depends on the same prima-facie-and-urgency test any Thai court applies, so it's a decision to make with litigation counsel, not an automatic step.