Judgment 1. Defendant no. 2 is the appellant. This appeal is directed against a judgment passed by a learned Judge of this Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 282 of 1956 on the 2nd January 1959 That appeal was brought to this Court against an order of the trial Judge refusing to set aside an ex parte decree passed against defendant no. 2 and his three sons, defendants 18 to 20. in a money suit, which the plaintiff had laid on the basis of a promissory note executed on the 21st December 1946 by defendant no. 2 as karla of Hindu undivided family in favour of the plaintiff 2. The suit was decreed ex parte against defendants 2 and 18 to 20 and was dismissed against other defendants on contest. This was on the 13th July. 1955. In September. 1955, an application was filed by defendant no, 2 in that court under Order 9. Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the ex parte decree on the ground that summons had not been served upon him and that he came to know of the ex parte decree only on the 31st August. 1955 The trial court rejected both the pleas and dismissed his application. Against that a miscellaneous appeal was brought to this Court with the same result. 3. The only point canvassed before us by learned counsel appearing for defendant No 2 appellant is that the substituted service of summons, as ordered under Order 5. Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the trial court on the 17th July. 1953 was not justified in law inasmuch as the pre-requisite condition laid down in that rule was not satisfied. Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the trial court on the 17th July. 1953 was not justified in law inasmuch as the pre-requisite condition laid down in that rule was not satisfied. He continued that Rule 12 of Order 5 enjoins upon a personal service of summons where-ever it is practicable on the defendant Rule 20 of Order 5 says: "(1) Where the Court is satisfied that there is reason to believe that the defendant is keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding service, or that for any other reason the summons cannot be served in the ordinary way, the Court shall order the summons to be served by affixing a copy thereof in some conspicuous place in the Court-house and also upon some conspicuous part of the house (if any) in which the defendant is known to have last resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain, or in such other manner as the Court thinks fit." The learned Judge who disposed of the miscellaneous appeal in this Court held that there was a justification for step being taken under Order 5, Rule 26 of the Code on the facts and circumstances of the case. But learned Counsel contended that it was not the satisfaction of the appellate court but the satisfaction of the trial court which was a pre-requisite condition before any substituted service could be legally ordered for under Rule 20. This contention is right but all the same it does not appear from the order sheet nor from any other material that the trial court in this case was not so satisfied before he passed the order, on the 17th July. 1953 for substituted service It is not necessary and that has also not been prescribed in any provision of the Code of Civil Procedure that the court will have to record the reasons for such satisfaction or even the fact that it was so satisfied before be can make a valid order under Rule 20 of Order 5 for substituted service. If we refer to the orders that had been passed in connection with the service of summons in this case previous to the 17th July 1953 as appears from the order sheet it will be clear that several attempts had been made by the plaintiff to have personal service of summons on defendant no. If we refer to the orders that had been passed in connection with the service of summons in this case previous to the 17th July 1953 as appears from the order sheet it will be clear that several attempts had been made by the plaintiff to have personal service of summons on defendant no. 2 as on other defendants When such attempts failed. the order dated the 17th July 1953 on the application of the plaintiff was passed by the trial court There is. therefore, sufficient material to presume that High Court was satisfied as a matter of fact as contemplated under Rule 20 before it directed a substituted service effected by publication of the summons in the Bengal Gazette. Mere absence in the order sheet to the effect that the Court was satisfied or mere absence of any reference to the reasons for such satisfaction in the order sheet cannot be taken advantage of by the appellant to challenge a valid order as made under Rule 20 Such record is not called for under any provision of law In absence of any other material to the contrary. we have to presume that the court had been satisfied before it passed the order on the 17th July, 1955 for substituted service. We do not therefore find any merit in this appeal and dismiss the appeal with costs.