JUDGMENT

Abdul Hamid Mohamad J:

To get a clearer picture of this proceeding I shall first set out the chronology of events.

The judgment creditor caused the bankruptcy notice to be issued on 24 December 1997. Three attempts were made to serve the notice, but on all occasions the process server was told that the judgment debtor had gone out. So, on 6 February 1998, the process server affirmed an affidavit of non-service.

On 18 February 1998, the judgment creditor filed a summons-in-chambers for an order of substituted service. An order was obtained on 2 April 1998.

Between 15 May 1998 and 29 May 1998 the judgment creditor served the bankruptcy notice by posting it on the court's notice board, on the judgment debtor's premises and by advertisement.

Creditor's petition was filed on 2 July 1998. Two attempts were made on 11 August 1998 and 13 August 1998 to serve the creditors petition on the judgment debtor but on both occasions the process server was told that the judgment debtor had gone out. Notice of appointment was given on 17 August 1998 for an appointment on 22 August 1998. On that day, again the process server was told that the judgment debtor had gone out.

Five days after the appointed date, on 27 August 1998 the judgment debtor filed this summons-in-chambers (encl. 14) and notified that his present address is at No. 26, Tingkat Kikik 6, Perai, Taman Inderawasih, 13800 Butterworth, Penang ("the new address").

Even though this appeal only concerns the application in encl. 14 which only affects the bankruptcy notice. I think I should give a complete chronology of what happened even after that.

Having been told of the new address of the judgment debtor, between 11 September 1998 and 12 November 1998, three attempts were made to serve the creditor's petition at the new address given by the judgment debtor. Again on all the three occasions the process server was told that the judgment debtor had gone out.

On 13 November 1998 the judgment creditor's solicitors informed the judgment debtor's solicitors that the former will proceed with the application for substituted service if their client does not come forward to accept service. A reminder was sent on 26 November 1998.

On 7 December 1998 the judgment creditor filed a summons-in-chambers for an order of substituted service of the creditor's petition.

On 14 January 1999 and 26 January 1999 the solicitors for the judgment creditor wrote to the solicitors for the judgment debtor urging the judgment debtor to accept service before the hearing date of the application for substituted service. On 28 January 1999 the application was heard. But the Senior Assistant Registrar adjourned it to 25 February 1999 to give one final chance to the judgment debtor to accept service, the wisdom of which I cannot understand.

However on 23 February 1999 the creditor's petition was served on the judgment debtor at the office of his solicitors.

By encl. 14, the judgment debtor seeks various orders giving numerous grounds, including some that are very technical and trivial. From the chronology of events it is clear that the judgment debtor had been evading service and, when he could not avoid it anymore, is now turning to the rules to nullify the order for substituted service, the service and everything that follows.

It was argued that the order for substituted service were "null and void, irregular, invalid, defective, wrongfully obtained ... ." Six "grounds" were given. They are: (a) failure to attempt service on the judgment debtor ("JD") at his last known address;

(b) Failure to comply with Practise Note No. 1 of 1968;

(c) in contravention of r. 110(1) of the Bankruptcy Rules 1969;

(d) consist of useless/insufficient/ineffective/irregular/wrong modes of substituted service;

(e) Having been tainted with misrepresentation of material fact;

(f) no effective service (as JD) was not aware of the B.N.

The deputy registrar dismissed the judgment debtor's application. Hence this appeal.