Question

Directions: The following question consists of two statements, one labelled as Assertion (A) and the other labelled as Reason (R). You are to examine these two statements carefully and decide if the Assertion (A) and the Reason (R) are individually true and if so, whether the Reason (R) is a correct explanation of the Assertion (A).
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, but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A).
• B. (A) is true, but (R) is false.
• C. (A) is false, but (R) is true.
• D. Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).

Hint:

Under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, the court acts on two main grounds: "Non-service of summons" OR "Sufficient cause for absence." If either is proven, the ex parte decree can be set aside.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
This question tests the understanding of Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, which provides the mechanism for setting aside an ex parte decree.

Step 2: Key Formula or Approach:
Analyze whether the legal grounds for setting aside the decree mentioned in the assertion are directly derived from the procedure outlined in the reason.

Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
Assertion (A) correctly identifies the ground of "sufficient cause" for non-appearance as a basis to set aside an ex parte decree.
Reason (R) correctly cites Order IX Rule 13, which provides two specific grounds for setting aside an ex parte decree: (1) summons was not duly served, or (2) the defendant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing.
Since the Reason (R) establishes the statutory basis and conditions that validate the rule mentioned in the Assertion (A), it is the correct explanation.

Step 4: Final Answer:
Both (A) and (R) are true, and (R) explains (A). Thus, (D) is the correct answer.

Answer 2

This is an Assertion-Reason question testing Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which lays down when a court can set aside a decree passed ex parte, that is, when it was passed because the defendant did not appear on the hearing date.

1. Option 1 (both true but R does not explain A): This is only half right. Both statements are indeed factually accurate, but it wrongly denies the explanatory link between them. Order IX Rule 13 is precisely the provision that supplies the sufficient cause ground mentioned in the Assertion, so R does explain A, and this option must be rejected.
2. Option 2 (A true, R false): The Reason is not false. Order IX Rule 13 genuinely requires the court to be satisfied either that summons was not duly served, or that the defendant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing. Since R is an accurate statement of the provision, this option fails.
3. Option 3 (A false, R true): The Assertion is not false either. It is settled procedural law that an ex parte decree can be set aside on proof of sufficient cause for non-appearance. Since A is also true, this option is incorrect.
4. Option 4 (both true, R correctly explains A): Both statements are legally accurate, and R does more than sit beside A, it supplies the actual statutory mechanism, Order IX Rule 13, and the very ground, sufficient cause, that makes the Assertion correct. R is therefore the correct explanation of A.

Once each option is tested against the actual text of Order IX Rule 13, only the fourth option survives: both statements are true and the Reason correctly explains the Assertion.

Therefore, the correct answer is Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).