Sufficient service for restoration applications requires effective notice; mere affixation at residence was held inadequate where the addressee was abroad.

Mere affixation of notice at the residence did not constitute sufficient service for a restoration application where the record showed that the addressee was residing abroad and effective service had not been established. The court treated the repeated attempts and affidavits of affixation as inadequate to support maintainability of the recall application, and the application was dismissed for want of proper service.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application for recalling the earlier order could be entertained in the absence of sufficient service of notice on the assessee.

Analysis: The application had been pending for a long period and repeated opportunities were granted to serve the assessee and file an affidavit of service. The affidavits filed only showed attempted affixation of notice at the assessee's residence, while the record indicated that the assessee was residing in London and there was no likelihood of his return in the near future. In these circumstances, the Court found that affixation of notice on the outer door did not amount to sufficient service for the purpose of the restoration application.

Conclusion: The application was not maintainable for want of sufficient service and was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the record shows that the addressee is abroad and effective service has not been established, mere affixation of notice at the residence is not sufficient service for restoration of the proceeding.

---