Although recorded as "existing," the Defendant is described as carrying on "Housing Development (No Operation)"; its issued share capital is stated as nil; and no company secretary is on record. The firm formerly acting for the Defendant (Messrs Nordin & Phua) has closed. No management corporation has been constituted for the development. C. APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES [6] Although the application invokes Order 62 rule 14 read with Order 92 rule 4, the substantive power to relieve against the ordinary requirement of service, and to direct that service be effected in some other manner, resides in Order 62 rule 5, which empowers the Court, where it appears impracticable for any reason to serve a document personally, to order substituted service in Form 133; and in the inherent jurisdiction preserved by Order 92 rule 4. I treat the application as one for relief from service under those provisions, the precise sub-rule cited by the Plaintiffs not being decisive of the Court's power. [7] Two further principles bear on the disposal. First, a document may be served on a company by leaving it at, or sending it by registered post to, its registered office in accordance with Order 62 rule 4(1)(a) of the Rules of Court 2012. On its face, therefore, service on the Defendant's registered office at Jalan Tengkera was good service notwithstanding the return of the article. Secondly, however, the endorsement "berpindah" casts doubt on whether that address remains the Defendant's true address, and the relief ultimately sought in the Originating Summons an order vesting registered title is of a gravity that makes it imprudent to rest the cause on so qualified a foundation. [8] That consideration governs the form of relief. Prayer 1 seeks outright exemption from service that is, dispensation. A dispensation gives notice to no one; an order obtained against a defendant who has had no notice at all is exposed to being set aside under Order 32 rule 6, and a vesting order affecting registered land, made in such circumstances, would be vulnerable to challenge not only by the Defendant or its liquidator, but by the chargee whose charges over the land remain registered and unsatisfied (Maybank Finance charges No. 002 (1990) and No. 006 (1992), both "unsatisfied"), and by the individual parcel proprietors of the development. Substituted service avoids that vulnerability: it constitutes the notice which the law deems sufficient. Where, as here, substituted service is practicable by advertisement and by affixing at the Defendant's addresses there is no occasion to dispense with service altogether. I therefore decline prayer 1 in the form sought, and will instead order substituted service. D. DECISION AND ORDERS [9] On the affidavit evidence, I am satisfied that ordinary and personal service on the Defendant is impracticable within the meaning of Order 62 rule 5: the Defendant is non-operational, its appointed solicitors have closed, no management corporation exists, and the registered articles have been returned undelivered. The conditions for substituted service are made out. [10] Accordingly, and confining myself to Enclosure 4, I make the following orders: