Question

Assertion (A): An ex parte decree may be set aside if the defendant satisfies the court that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called for hearing. Reason (R): Under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the court must be satisfied that the summons was not duly served or that the defendant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called for hearing.

• A. Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).
• B. Both (A) and (R) are true, but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A).
• C. (A) is false, but (R) is true.
• D. (A) is true, but (R) is false.

Hint:

For ex parte decrees, immediately think of: Order IX Rule 13 = Non-service of summons + Sufficient Cause These are the two classic examination keywords.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Concept: The Code of Civil Procedure seeks to ensure that no party suffers because of a lack of opportunity to present its case. Therefore, when a decree is passed in the absence of a defendant, the law provides a remedy through Order IX Rule 13 CPC.

Step 1: Meaning of an Ex Parte Decree.
* An ex parte decree is a decree passed against a defendant who failed to appear before the court despite the suit being called for hearing. * Such a decree is valid unless set aside according to law.

Step 2: Grounds for setting aside.
Order IX Rule 13 provides two major grounds:

• Summons was not duly served; or

• Defendant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing.
Examples of sufficient cause include:

• Serious illness,

• Accident,

• Circumstances beyond the defendant's control,

• Other bona fide reasons accepted by the court.

Step 3: Relationship between Assertion and Reason.
* Assertion (A) correctly states one of the statutory grounds. * Reason (R) reproduces the legal requirement contained in Order IX Rule 13. * Therefore, the Reason directly explains why the Assertion is legally correct.

Order IX Rule 13 embodies the principle of natural justice by ensuring that no party is condemned unheard.

Answer 2

Assertion-Reason questions are best solved in two stages: first test whether each statement is independently true, then test whether the Reason actually explains the Assertion. Applying that method here rules out three of the four options directly.

1. Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A): Assertion (A) correctly states a real ground under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, namely that an ex parte decree may be set aside on sufficient cause shown for non-appearance. Reason (R) accurately reproduces the statutory test under Order IX Rule 13, which requires the court to be satisfied either that summons was not duly served or that sufficient cause prevented appearance. Because (R) states the very provision that creates the ground described in (A), it directly explains why (A) is legally correct.
2. Both (A) and (R) are true, but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A): This would require (R) to be a true but unrelated or insufficient statement. Here, however, (R) does not merely coexist with (A); it is the specific statutory basis that produces the outcome described in (A), so treating them as merely coincidentally true understates their relationship.
3. (A) is false, but (R) is true: This can be ruled out immediately because (A) correctly describes an established, valid ground for setting aside an ex parte decree; it is not a false statement.
4. (A) is true, but (R) is false: This too can be ruled out because (R) is an accurate restatement of the actual text and test under Order IX Rule 13; it does not misstate the law.

Since both statements independently hold up as true, and (R) supplies the precise statutory rule that justifies (A) rather than being a merely coincidental true statement, the relationship between them is one of explanation, not mere coexistence.

The correct answer is therefore that both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).