This predicament may raise some jurisprudential problem. There are two conflicting views as to the role of a civil court. The continental view is that once the parties have invoked the jurisdiction of the court it is its duty to investigate the fact and the law and give a decision according to its view of the justice in the case with regard to any public interest that may involved. The truth is judges in Thailand have little or no difficulties on the problem raised. The reason may be based on the fact that on the true analysis, the Thai legal system is a blend between the civil and common law family.
Thai judges are familiar with conciliation.
The Civil Procedure Code, since its promulgation in 1935m prescribes in section 20 that the Court shall have the power, at any stage of the proceedings, to attempt compromise or conciliation between the parties on the issue in dispute. The Thai courts, when conduction a conciliation process, will depart from their traditional passive role of a judge in the adversary system, to the role of a more active judge in the inquisitorial system. However, when the judge feels uneasy or inappropriate for him or her to continue sitting in the case, he or she shall withdraw. Otherwise the judge may be challenged on the group of bias. However, the instance is very rare.