Service of summons must be made in accordance with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Code, and service by affixation can only be made under certain circumstances, including the absence of the defendant from his residence and the unlikelihood of his being found thereat within a reasonable time.

( 1 ) THIS is an undefended suit. At the moment it is failing for want of proper service of the writ of summons. That, of course, does not mean that I am dismissing it, but I am granting further opportunity to the plaintiff to effect a proper service. Unfortunately, this kind of service has become so frequent of late that in a future case the Court may not deal with the matter so kindly. It is for that purpose that I propose in this case to discuss the law relating to the service of writs and to point out the defects which are being so constantly met with.

( 2 ) THIS suit is for a decree for Bs. 3,563-13-1, upon an overdraft loan account which defendant l had with the plaintiff Bank. Defendant l is a partnership firm and defendants 2 and 3 are the partners thereof. Defendant 4 has been sued as a guarantor. So far as defendant 4 is concerned, he was served personally and acknowledged service of the writ of summons, and no question arises about the service upon him. The service upon the other three defendants is utterly inadequate. I shall now proceed to describe the service effected upon them.

( 3 ) THE writ of summons in respect of all these three defendants were transmitted to the Sealdah Court, and it appears from the return of that Court that they were served by a process-server of the name of Jadunath Dey. It has already been pointed out that defendant 1 is a partnership firm and defendants 2 and 3 have been, impleaded as parties in their capacity as partners of defendant 1. It will further be observed that the address of defendant 1 is given as 12, Cornwallis Street and it is stated that defendants 2 and 3 carry on business under the firm name and style of Bansen and Co. at the same address. Their residential addresses have not been given in the cause title. Service of the writ was effected on defendants l and 2 in the following manner.

( 4 ) ON 22nd January 1951, the process-server went to premises No. 32a, Khelat Babu Lane, which, I am told, is the residential address of defendant 2, but which is nowhere mentioned in the cause title, and the process-server says in his return: "as on search I could not find Sri Eanailal Banerjee, defendant 2 who is an authorised employee on behalf of Bansen and Co. defendant 1, present, I postponed the act of service today. " on the next day, that is, 23rd January 1951, he again went to premises No. 32a, Khelat Babu Lane and proceeds to say as follows :"at about 1 p. m. , on my enquiry, I went to premises 32a, Khelat Babu Lane; on search I would not find Sri Kanailal Banerjee, defendant 2, who is an authorised employee on behalf of Bansen and Co. , defendant 1, present; a lady from that house said that he was not at home then and had gone out, as I could not find anybody or an authorised employee living in the same mess on his behalf, I postponed the act of service today. "he again returned to the scene of action on 25th January 1951 and this is what happened :"at about 10 a m. on my own enquiry I went to premises 32 A, Khelat Babu Lane, on search I could not find Sri Kanailal Banerjee, defendant 2, who is an authorised employee on behalf of Bansen and Co. , defendant 1, present, and as I could not find any authorised employee living in the same mess on his behalf, I effected service by affixing copy of notice, copy of summons, copy of the plaint) and the Bengali translation directed to them, to the outer door of his house. "

( 5 ) DEFENDANT 3 was served in the following manner. The process-server, on 22nd January 1951, at about 10 a. m. , went to premises No. 4/2a Rajendralal Street, which, I am told, is the residential address of defendant 3, but which address again is not given in the plaint. On that date he could not find the defendant on search and postponed service. He again went to the same address on the 23rd and, not having found him upon search, postponed service. No particulars of any such search have been given in the return. Then, on 25th January 1931, this is