The trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting service by publication. Substantial evidence supported its finding that plaintiff had made diligent efforts to locate Singh and serve him by other means. He had tried service by mail, but received no signed receipt. He tried substituted service at Singh’s purported place of business but found no one present with whom the summons could be left. The fact that defendant did not see the published summons does not invalidate the service by publication. Also, there was evidence showing that Singh had actual knowledge of the suit by other means.