JUDGMENT 1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 27.9.2012 in I.A.No.1250 of 2011 in O.S.No.580 of 2009 passed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner herein is the defendant in O.S.No.580 of 2009. The respondent herein filed the said suit alleging that the petitioner has borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/-from her on 7.10.2006 and executed a demand promissory note in her favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. It is also alleged that the petitioner has borrowed another sum of Rs.1,20,000/-from the respondent on 25.3.2007 and executed a demand promissory note agreeing to repay the said amount with 18% p.a. Alleging that the petitioner failed to repay the same, the respondent filed the suit for recovery of Rs.2,60,160/-. 3. It appears that in the said suit, the summons were not served on the petitioner. Then, publication of notice in Daily newspaper by way of substitute service was ordered and as the petitioner did not appear in spite of publication of notice in daily newspaper, she was set ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed. After receiving notice in the Execution Petition, the petitioner filed a petition to set aside the ex parte decree and as there was a delay of 488 days in filling the said petition, she filed I.A.No.1250 of 2001 to condone the delay of 488 days. 4. The specific case of the petitioner herein is that no summons were served on her. It is also her case that the respondent had lent Rs.50,000/- to her and then, she entered into an agreement that she would let out one portion of the house to the respondent without rent and the respondent would not charge any interest on the amount of Rs.50,000/- borrowed by her. It is also alleged that except borrowing Rs.50,000/-, she did not borrow any other amount from the respondent and that the respondent has suppressed the written understanding between the parties. It is also alleged that except borrowing Rs.50,000/-, she did not borrow any other amount from the respondent and that the respondent has suppressed the written understanding between the parties. The lower Court came to the conclusion that substitute service of summons by way of paper publication is also a proper service of the summons to the parties and when there is proper service, it is for the petitioner to explain the delay and that there is no proper explanation to condone the delay of 488 days in filing the set aside petition. 5. The only point that arise for consideration is whether the impugned order is sustainable? 6. Admittedly, summons were not served on the petitioner in O.S.No.580 of 2009 and the respondent applied for substitute service by way of publication of summons in a daily newspaper. Of course, it is not in dispute that the summons have been published in a daily newspaper calling upon the petitioner to appear before the Court on a particular day and that the petitioner failed to appear before the lower Court. It is not clear in which daily newspaper, the summons were published. Normally, in case of substitute service, the Court must be satisfied that there is a reason to believe that the defendant is keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding service and the order of service by an advertisement in a newspaper shall be made in a daily newspaper having circulation in the locality, in which the defendant has last known to have actually or voluntarily resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain. 7. Order V Rule 20 is as follows: 20. Substituted service:––(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 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. (1A) Where the Court acting under sub-rule (1) orders service by an advertisement in a newspaper, the newspaper shall be a daily newspaper circulating in the locality in which the defendant is last known to have actually and voluntarily resided, carried on business or personally worked for gain.] Effect of substituted service. ………………………… 8. There cannot be any doubt that substitute service shall be a sufficient service in ordinary circumstances. But before that, the Court must be careful to see that conditions enumerated in Order V Rule 20(1) have been strictly complied with. In most of the cases, publications by an advertisement in a newspaper would be a futile exercise because such publications are being made in daily newspapers having no wide circulation in the area, in which the defendant is actually residing or earlier resided. Moreover, the illiterate or ignorant persons may not have access to the newspapers. It is a ground reality that only few educated persons subscribe daily news papers and most of the readers are not bothered about the Court notices. Therefore, unless the Court is satisfied that the defendant is keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding service or that the summons cannot be served in the ordinary way, the Courts should not order substitute service by way of paper publication. It appears that after exhausting all other modes of service as contemplated under Order V Rule 20(1) C.P.C, the Court should resort to service by an advertisement in a news paper under Order V Rule 20(1A) C.P.C. 9. Therefore, whenever a defendant complains that there is no service of summons on him, the Court should examine all the facts and circumstances and come to a just conclusion. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed on a condition of the petitioner depositing an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the credit of the Execution Petition in the lower Court, within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such deposit, the respondent/D.H.R shall be permitted to withdraw the same on furnishing sufficient surety. 11. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.