Substituted service requires due diligence before affixing summons; failure to enquire properly can justify setting aside an ex parte decree.

Substituted service under Order V, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is valid only after the serving officer has used due and reasonable diligence to effect personal service and to ascertain the defendant's whereabouts. Where the record shows repeated visits but no real enquiry beyond being told the defendants were absent, and no further reasonable steps before affixing summons, service is not duly effected. On that basis, an ex parte decree may be set aside under Order IX, Rule 13, and any consequential attachment proceedings fall with it; the suit is restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the ex parte decree was liable to be set aside on the ground that the defendants were not duly served with summons under substituted service.

Analysis: Under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an ex parte decree may be set aside if the summons was not duly served. Under Order V, Rule 17, substituted service is permissible only after the serving officer has used all due and reasonable diligence to find the defendant and has failed to effect personal service. The serving officer in this case made repeated visits to the defendants' place of residence and business, but after being told that they were not present, made no real enquiry as to their whereabouts. The record did not show that he had taken the further reasonable steps required before resorting to affixing the summons. The service was therefore not effected in the manner required by law.

Conclusion: The summons was not duly served, and the ex parte decree, together with the consequential attachment proceedings, was set aside and the suit restored to the list.

Ratio Decidendi: Substituted service under Order V, Rule 17 is valid only when the serving officer has first used all due and reasonable diligence to effect personal service and to ascertain the defendant's whereabouts.

---