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.
Mark your answer as :
Assertion (A) Analysis: Setting Aside Ex Parte Decree
Assertion (A) states that an ex parte decree can be set aside if the defendant proves a sufficient cause for non-appearance. This is a correct statement of law. The law allows defendants to seek relief from an ex parte judgment under specific circumstances, including proving a valid reason for their absence.
Reason (R) Analysis: Order IX Rule 13 CPC
Reason (R) refers to Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). This rule outlines the conditions under which a court can set aside an ex parte decree. The two primary conditions mentioned in the rule are:
- The summons was not duly served on the defendant.
- The defendant was prevented by a sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called for hearing.
This statement accurately reflects the provisions of Order IX Rule 13 CPC.
Explanation: Connecting Assertion and Reason
Assertion (A) highlights one of the key grounds ('sufficient cause') for setting aside an ex parte decree. Reason (R) provides the specific legal provision, Order IX Rule 13 CPC, which governs the setting aside of such decrees and explicitly includes 'sufficient cause' as one of the valid grounds. Therefore, Reason (R) correctly explains and provides the legal basis for the statement made in Assertion (A).
Conclusion
Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are true, and Reason (R) is the correct explanation of Assertion (A).
Important Questions from Mixed Topic (AIBE)
- 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) : The Constitution of India does not adopt a rigid separation of powers among the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary.
Reason (R) : The constitutional framework incorporates a system of checks and balances, allowing limited functional overlap among the organs of the State.
In the context of the Constitution of India, which one of the following is correct ? - "The rules of natural justice were not confined to the narrow precincts of the prevailing definition of quasi-judicial functions." This principle was laid down in which case ?
- Ajeet Singh, a famous singer, enters into a contract with Yash Aditya Music Company agreeing to perform exclusively for them for 2 years and not to perform for any other company during that period. After one year, Ajeet Singh refuses to perform for Yash Aditya Music Company and begins performing for BR Chopra & Company. Yash Aditya Music Company files a suit seeking an injunction restraining Ajeet Singh from performing for BR Chopra & Company.
Which of the following statements is correct under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ? - Under constitutional jurisprudence in India, repeated re-promulgation of Ordinances without placing them before the Legislature was described by the Supreme Court as a "fraud on the Constitution" in which decision ?
- Under the Patents Act, 1970, a patent is granted to an inventor in India. Which of the following correctly reflects a limitation on the patentee's rights under the law ?
