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

A useful check for this kind of question is to ask what would happen to the Assertion if the Reason were removed, since if the Assertion no longer has any legal basis without the Reason, then the Reason must be its explanation.

1. Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A): If Order IX Rule 13 and its "sufficient cause" test (as described in R) did not exist, there would be no legal ground at all for the claim in A that an ex parte decree can be set aside on that basis. Since A's entire legal footing collapses without R, R must be functioning as its explanation, and both are independently accurate statements of law.
2. Both (A) and (R) are true, but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A): This option would apply if A had some other independent legal basis besides what R describes, but no separate basis exists here; A's ground is exactly the rule stated in R.
3. (A) is false, but (R) is true: Order IX Rule 13 genuinely allows an ex parte decree to be set aside on sufficient cause, so describing A as false would contradict the settled procedural rule.
4. (A) is true, but (R) is false: R correctly tracks the statutory language of Order IX Rule 13 regarding non-service of summons or sufficient cause, so there is no basis to call R false.

Because removing R would strip A of its legal foundation entirely, R is properly seen as the explanation for A, and both statements are true. The correct choice is that both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).

Answer 2

Another approach is to look at the broader purpose behind Order IX Rule 13 and check whether that purpose is what actually links the Assertion to the Reason.

1. Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A): The purpose of Order IX Rule 13 is to prevent a defendant from being condemned unheard due to circumstances outside their control. Assertion (A) states the practical outcome of this purpose (the decree can be set aside), while Reason (R) states the precise legal mechanism, non-service of summons or sufficient cause, through which that purpose is achieved. Since the mechanism in (R) is exactly what produces the result in (A), the two statements are linked by cause and effect, not coincidence.
2. Both (A) and (R) are true, but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A): For this to be correct, (R) would have to be true but describe something other than the actual reason the decree can be set aside; instead, (R) describes precisely that reason, so this option undersells the connection between them.
3. (A) is false, but (R) is true: Since courts do regularly set aside ex parte decrees on sufficient cause, (A) reflects settled procedural practice and cannot be treated as false.
4. (A) is true, but (R) is false: Since the statutory language of Order IX Rule 13 does require the court to be satisfied about non-service or sufficient cause, (R) is an accurate description of the rule and cannot be treated as false.

Viewed through the lens of the rule's underlying purpose, (R) is not just an accompanying true fact but the actual mechanism that explains (A). The correct answer is that both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).