Valid service of summons requires strict procedural compliance before affixation can justify an undefended suit.

Service of a writ of summons by affixation is valid only after compliance with the applicable procedural rules and a proper factual foundation showing that the defendant could not be found at the relevant residence or place of business. Mere repeated visits, without adequate enquiry and without using the special service modes applicable to partners, firms, or corporations, is insufficient. Where the process-server acted on a mistaken understanding of the rules, served at incorrect locations, and resorted to affixation without satisfying these requirements, the service is invalid and the suit cannot be treated as undefended.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ of summons was validly served on the defendants so as to justify proceeding with the suit as undefended.

Analysis: Service by affixation is permissible only after compliance with the applicable procedural rules and only where the defendant cannot be found at his residence or place of business within the meaning of the amended provisions. Mere repeated visits to a residential address, without proper enquiry, without showing that the defendant was absent from his residence and unlikely to be found there within a reasonable time, and without following the special modes of service applicable to partners, firms, and corporations, is not sufficient. The return of service in the present case showed that the process-server proceeded on a mistaken understanding of the rules, treated partners as mere authorised employees, served at incorrect locations, and resorted to affixation without the necessary factual foundation.

Conclusion: The service was invalid and the suit could not proceed as an undefended matter.

---