1. We think the learned Subordinate Judge is right in this case. It appears that when the summons was taken out on the first occasion the serving officer was informed by the agent of the defendants that they had gone to a village in Puducottah territory and the date when they would return was not known. He then affixed the summons to the door of the defendants house. This was on the 14th November 1909. A second summons was issued in January 1910 and again the process server was informed by the agent of the defendants that they had gone 2 or 3 days previously to soma place in the Puducottah territory and it was not known when they would return. The peon thereupon again affixed the summons to the door of the defendants house. The court then declared the defendants ex parte and proceeded with the suit. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that there is no order of the Subordinate Judge who heard the case declaring that there had been a sufficient service. But the whole record is not before us and the appellants did not take this objection before the lower Court and there is no statement to that effect in their affidavits. We are, therefore, unable to say that this contenti