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

To answer this Assertion-Reason pair correctly, check the Reason's legal accuracy first, then the Assertion's, and only then decide whether one explains the other.

1. Checking option 3, A false and R true: The Assertion is not false. Civil procedure clearly allows a defendant to have an ex parte decree set aside by showing sufficient cause for missing the hearing, so this option is ruled out immediately.
2. Checking option 2, A true and R false: The Reason is not false either. Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, does say the court must find either improper service of summons or sufficient cause for non-appearance before setting aside the decree, so this option also falls away.
3. Checking option 1, both true but R not the explanation: With both statements confirmed true, the only remaining question is whether they are connected. Since Order IX Rule 13 is the very rule that creates the sufficient cause ground referred to in the Assertion, R plainly does explain A, so this option is wrong to deny the link.
4. Checking option 4, both true and R explains A: This captures the relationship accurately. The Assertion states the outcome, that sufficient cause can undo an ex parte decree, and the Reason states the statutory rule and its two grounds that produce that outcome. R is the explanation for A.

Working through each possibility rules out three of the four choices, leaving only the option where both statements are true and connected by cause and provision.

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

Answer 2

An Assertion-Reason question is answered in two stages: first decide whether each statement is independently true, and only then decide whether the Reason actually accounts for the Assertion rather than merely being a separate true fact.

1. Independent truth of the Assertion: It is correct that a defendant against whom an ex parte decree has been passed can get it set aside by satisfying the court of sufficient cause for not appearing at the hearing.
2. Independent truth of the Reason: It is also correct that Order IX Rule 13 requires the court to be satisfied on one of two points, either that summons was not duly served, or that the defendant had sufficient cause for non-appearance, before it will set aside the decree.
3. Whether R explains A: Since the Assertion's stated ground, sufficient cause, is one of the two conditions that Order IX Rule 13 itself lays down, the Reason is not a coincidental true fact standing beside the Assertion, it is the statutory source of the very rule the Assertion describes. That satisfies the requirement of being a correct explanation.
4. Matching to the answer choices: Options that call A or R false are eliminated because both are accurate. The option that accepts both as true but denies the explanatory connection is also eliminated because the connection is direct and provision-based. What remains is the option holding both true with R explaining A.

Applying the two-stage test confirms that the Assertion is true, the Reason is true, and the Reason correctly explains the Assertion.

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