Invalid service by affixation where proper efforts to trace the respondent were not shown under civil procedure requirements.

Service of summons by affixation on the outer door was invalid because the bailiff's report and affidavit did not show that affixation was justified under the Civil Procedure Code. The record only showed that the respondent could not be found, without any adequate attempt to trace him or proper enquiry from his son about his whereabouts. As the procedural requirements for substituted service were not satisfied, the notice was directed to be sent down for proper service.

---

---

Issues: Whether service of summons by affixation on the outer door was valid under the Civil Procedure Code.

Analysis: The report and affidavit of the bailiff did not show that the serving officer was entitled to resort to affixation. The record disclosed only that the respondent could not be found, without any adequate attempt to trace him or any enquiry of his son about his whereabouts. The requirement of the Civil Procedure Code for proper service was not complied with.

Conclusion: Service was held to be invalid, and the notice was directed to be sent down for proper service.

---