Short answer. No. The rule's default is that the court must examine the administrator under oath before allowing an account, but it carves out an exception: if no one objects to the account and its correctness is satisfactorily established by competent proof, the court may allow it without that examination.
What the law says
except when no objection is made to the allowance of the account and its correctness is satisfactorily established by competent proof
Rule 85, Section 9 — Examinations on oath with respect to account. Read the full provision →
The default is examination under oath
The rule's starting point is that the court shall examine the executor or administrator under oath about every matter relating to an account, and specifically as to its correctness, before allowing it. That examination is meant to happen before the account is approved, not as an afterthought, and it is the mechanism by which the court satisfies itself that the figures the administrator reported actually reflect what happened to the estate's money and property.
The exception the rule carves out
That default gives way in one situation: when no objection is made to the allowance of the account and its correctness is satisfactorily established by competent proof. Both conditions have to be present — an unopposed account is not automatically excused from scrutiny if its correctness has not otherwise been shown by competent proof. Where both are met, the court has discretion to allow the account without a separate oath-based examination of the administrator — but that discretion binds only the court's own procedure, not the underlying duty to actually account correctly for estate property.
Heirs and creditors share the same privilege
The right to examine under oath is not reserved to the court alone. Heirs, legatees, distributees, and creditors of the estate are given the same privilege the executor or administrator has of being examined on oath on any matter relating to an administration account. That is worth knowing if you have an interest in the estate: silence from other parties does not close off scrutiny that you yourself are entitled to raise.
Why the absence of objection matters
The exception exists because an oath-based examination is meant to resolve doubt, and where nobody disputes the account and its correctness is already proven, that purpose has effectively been served another way. This is a matter of the court's discretion on the record before it, not a guarantee that every unopposed account will be waved through — the correctness of the account still has to be established, just not necessarily through a separate examination of the administrator — a breach of that underlying duty to account honestly is not excused simply because nobody objected at the time.