(delivering the judgment of the Court): The appeal is against the decision of Anuar J. in the High Court at Johore Bahru dismissing a motion by the appellant asking, inter alia, that the Bankruptcy Notice dated July 23, 1976 and Bankruptcy Petition dated January 20, 1977 be set aside.

There are several grounds of appeal. It is contended that —

(a) there was no proper service of bankruptcy notice on the appellant;

(b) the petition presented by the respondent was signed on its behalf by an officer not duly authorised for that purpose; and

(c) there was no act of bankruptcy committed within the last six months before we presentation of the bankruptcy petition.

Briefly the facts are that the respondents obtained a final judgment on February 2, 1976 for a sum of $6,844.15 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the judgment amount and cost. The judgment debt was not satisfied and execution thereon had not been stayed. Bankruptcy notice was issued on July 23. Time for service was extended for one month by court order of September 9, for effective service to be made on or before October 10. By affidavit of posting dated November 4, it is disclosed that posting of copies of bankruptcy notice and a copy of the order on the notice board of the High Court at Kuala Lumpur was effected on September 20. The affidavit of service of advertisement disclosed that the bankruptcy notice was sent for publication on October 1, and duly published in the New Straits Times and Berita Harian on October 4. The order for substituted service also directed that a copy of the bankruptcy notice and the order be posted on a conspicuous part of the judgment debtor's premises known as 4th Floor MARA Building, Johor Bahru.

The posting on the judgment debtor's premises was not effected until October 20, ten days after the expiry of the extension period. However, the appellant did not raise it as a ground to support his application to set aside the bankruptcy notice and the motion to annul the adjudication order. It is raised for the first time in this court.

On the question of service of bankruptcy notice rule 97 of the Bankruptcy Rules, 1969 provides that —

"a Bankruptcy Notice shall be served and service thereof shall be proved in the like manner as is by these Rules prescribed for the service of a creditor's petition."

Rules 109 to 113 relate to service of creditor's petition. Rule 109 provides for personal service and where personal service is not possible substituted service is provided for under rule 110 as follows —

"(1) If the court is satisfied by affidavit or other evidence on oath that prompt personal service cannot be effected because the debtor is keeping out of the way to avoid service of the petition or any other legal process or for any other cause, it may order substituted service to be effected in such a manner as it thinks fit.

(2) Where any such order has been carried out, the petition shall be deemed to have been duly served on the debtor."

The appellant contended that the affidavit supporting the respondents' application for substituted service was insufficient to secure the order sought. I think the proper time for the appellant to raise this was at the hearing before Harun J. on an application to set aside the bankruptcy notice but he did not do so. I do not see any reason why it should be considered now. In any event, there is no merit whatever in the appellant's contention. The learned judge was satisfied that there was sufficient ground to order substituted service. The decision was never challenged. There were two parts of the order, first, an extension of time of service of the bankruptcy notice for one month to be effected on or before October 10; second, the mode of substituted service. It is in evidence that the order to post on the Notice Board at the High Court at Kuala Lumpur and to advertise in the New Straits Times and Berita Harian had been complied with within the time extended except the posting on the