JUDGMENT : This appeal is preferred by defendant No.9 in O.S.137/2009 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Belagavi. 2. Respondent No.1 is the plaintiff. Respondents 2 to 9 are other defendants who have preferred cross objections. We do not find it necessary to refer to pleadings, for the appeal can be disposed of on a short point relating to service of suit summons on the appellant. 3. The appellant was placed ex-parte in the suit, the resultant effect of decree passed in the suit is that sale of suit property under sale deed dated 05.01.2009 executed by defendants 1 to 7 through their power of attorney i.e., defendant 8 in favour of appellant/defendant 9 is held to be not binding on plaintiff. 4. The main grievance of defendant No.9 is that she was living abroad when suit summons was sought to be served on her at the address given in the cause title of the plaint and therefore there was no service of summons on her. 5. Smt. Surabhi Kulkarni, learned counsel for the appellant argued that when the suit summons issued to appellant through court was returned with an endorsement that the addressee was out of India, the trial court should not have allowed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order V Rule 20 CPC and permitted publication of summons in a local newspaper. The plaintiff was also aware of the fact that appellant had gone abroad, and therefore she should have taken process to appellant’s address in the foreign country. Since defendant No.9 was not residing in India, even if summons was published in the newspaper, it cannot be held to be sufficient service. Thus seen appellant was deprived of an opportunity to contest the suit, and hence the ex-parte decree needs to be set aside and the suit remanded to trial court to enable defendant No.9 contest it, she argued. 6. Sri J.S.Shetty, learned counsel for the plaintiff/ respondent No.1 submitted that when defendant No.9 has taken up a contention that she was not in India, it is for her to prove that she was abroad. There is no irregularity committed by the trial court in ordering suit summons to be published in a newspaper and on that ground, no decree can be reversed or modified for error or irregularity not affecting the merits of the case. There is no irregularity committed by the trial court in ordering suit summons to be published in a newspaper and on that ground, no decree can be reversed or modified for error or irregularity not affecting the merits of the case. In support of his submission, he places reliance on section 99 of the Code. 7. Firstly we deal with section 99. According to this section no decree can be reversed or modified owing to error or irregularity not affecting merits or jurisdiction. But, in this case, reversal of a decree was sought on the ground that summons was not duly served on defendant No.9. Defendant No.9 was out of India, but the paper publication was taken in Belagavi. Section 99 is inapplicable to the context. 8. On perusal of records, we find that there was no service of suit summons on the appellant in the ordinary mode. The summons issued to the appellant for service at the address mentioned in the cause title of the plaint was not served; it was retuned with an endorsement ‘Door locked, she is out of India’. Thereafter the plaintiff filed an application under Order V Rule 20 of CPC and sought permission of the court to take out publication of summons in the newspaper “Kannadamma”. Since the court allowed the application, summons was published in that newspaper, and on 15.12.2010, the court held that service on defendant No.9, i.e, appellant sufficient and placed her ex-parte. However, defendants 1 to 8 participated in the suit proceeding. 9. In the context of above circumstance, we need to reiterate the rule that the court need not grant or permit application under Order V Rule 20 of CPC on its mere filing. The court must arrive at a satisfaction on the basis of contents of affidavit filed along with the application and other materials available on record that the defendant is residing in the address given by the plaintiff, and evading service of summons. If the process server or the postman returns the summons or notice with endorsement that ‘addressee not residing in the given address’ or ‘door locked’ or to the like effect, the court must direct the plaintiff to ascertain the correct address of the defendant in case he or she is not residing in the given address. If the process server or the postman returns the summons or notice with endorsement that ‘addressee not residing in the given address’ or ‘door locked’ or to the like effect, the court must direct the plaintiff to ascertain the correct address of the defendant in case he or she is not residing in the given address. The provisions of the Code and Chapter VII of the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice, prescribe rules with regard to mode of service. Every attempt should be made to effect personal service in the first instance and on failure of service in that mode, or on an agent, or a member of the family, the process server should go again and again for this purpose if there is time left for return of summons or notice, and obtain for each successive attempt of service, attestation of witnesses different from those who had attested reports of previous attempt(s). In other words, any of the ways enumerated in Order V Rules 9 to 16 of the Code, is to be followed. Satisfaction of service in accordance with procedure found in Order V Rule 17 CPC cannot be drawn without holding an enquiry under Rule 18. 10. It is only after exhausting the service of summons by other modes, as a last resort, substituted service as prescribed in Order V Rule 20 of CPC can be permitted. The discretionary power made available under Order V Rule 20 of CPC is frequently exercised by courts by permitting publication of summons or notice in the newspaper. Publication in newspaper does not serve purposes in all situations. For example, if defendant is illiterate or belongs to a class which cannot be expected to read newspaper, publication in newspaper serves no purpose; care must be taken before permitting publication in newspaper. If the plaintiff is very sure that defendant is residing in the address stated by him in the plaint, substituted service by affixture may be permitted instead of publication in newspaper. If the defendant is literate, publication of summons or notice in the newspaper may be permitted. Whether a defendant is literate or not is a question of fact which the plaintiff has to convince the court. 11. Whenever notice is to be published in a newspaper, it should be published in a newspaper having wide circulation in the locality where the defendant resides. Whether a defendant is literate or not is a question of fact which the plaintiff has to convince the court. 11. Whenever notice is to be published in a newspaper, it should be published in a newspaper having wide circulation in the locality where the defendant resides. The object of effecting substituted service by advertisement in a newspaper is to inform the defendant that proceedings are pending against him and that he should appear in court. This object can be achieved by publication in a newspaper having wide circulation which is likely to be read by the defendant or the class to which he belongs. 12. Care should also be taken that such notices are published as far as possible in vernacular papers, vernacular being the language of the subordinate courts. They should only be published in papers printed in English and Kannada or such other language in the border districts. 13. Now, coming to the facts of this case, we find that in the first instance, summons was issued through process of the court which was sought to be served on defendant No.9. Thereafter, summons was published in the newspaper despite the fact that plaintiff was aware that defendant No.9 was not residing in India. Section 27 of CPC read with Appendix B speaks about service of summons to defendants. The material infirmity in this case pointed out by the counsel for the appellant/ defendant No.9 is that soon after summons was returned unserved, directly I.A No.3 was filed under Order V Rule 20 of the Code to issue suit summons by way of paper publication. It is settled rule of interpretation that when the legislature provides a particular thing to be done in a particular manner then such thing has to be done in the same prescribed manner and in no other manner. Because of placing defendant No.9 ex-parte, she was deprived of an opportunity to contest the suit of the plaintiff. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant Smt. Surabhi Kulkarni that defendant No.9 is the purchaser of the schedule property and now that the suit has been decreed against all the defendants, sale deed is held to be not binding on the plaintiff. It has affected the rights of defendant No.9. 14. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant Smt. Surabhi Kulkarni that defendant No.9 is the purchaser of the schedule property and now that the suit has been decreed against all the defendants, sale deed is held to be not binding on the plaintiff. It has affected the rights of defendant No.9. 14. When there was a report of the process server of the court stating that defendant No.9 was not in India, the plaintiff ought to have taken proper steps to ascertain the address of defendant No.9 and see that the suit summons was duly served on defendant No.9, where defendant No.9 was residing. Order V Rule 25 of CPC provides for a procedure for service of summons if defendant resides outside India. But no such steps were taken by the plaintiff. Thereby, the mandatory provisions of the Code with regard to service of summons are not followed by the plaintiff. 15. The learned counsel Sri Dinesh M. Kulkarni, appearing for the cross-objectors submits that his clients being defendants 1 to 8 are also affected because of the impugned judgment. For the last 50 years, defendants are exercising their right over the property. 16. In the light of the foregoing discussions, service of summons on defendant No.9, as she was not in India, cannot be held as ‘sufficient’ within the meaning of Order V Rule 20 of the Code. In other words, such summons and the service effected pursuant thereto cannot be held to be in conformity with Section 27 of the Code read with the statutory format prescribed under the Code. 17. It is for this reason, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant/defendant No.9 has been able to make out a ground to allow this appeal and the impugned judgment and decree requires to be set aside. The case is to be remanded to the court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Belagavi, to decide the suit afresh after giving opportunity to defendant No.9 to contest the suit. The suit shall be decided on merits. Consequentially, R.F.A.Crob. No.100010/2023 also requires to be allowed. 18. Resultantly, we pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal in RFA.No.100180/2017 and the Cross Objection in RFA.CROB.No.100010/2023 are hereby allowed and remanded to the Trial Court, ii) The judgment and decree dated 16.03.2017 passed in O.S.No.137/2009 by the I Addl. The suit shall be decided on merits. Consequentially, R.F.A.Crob. No.100010/2023 also requires to be allowed. 18. Resultantly, we pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal in RFA.No.100180/2017 and the Cross Objection in RFA.CROB.No.100010/2023 are hereby allowed and remanded to the Trial Court, ii) The judgment and decree dated 16.03.2017 passed in O.S.No.137/2009 by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Belgavi, is set aside, iii) The suit in O.S.No.137/2009 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Belagavi, is restored, iv) Parties to the suit shall appear before the Trial Court on 02.11.2023 without awaiting any notice from the Trial Court. On that day defendant No.9 shall appear before the Trial Court and file her written statement without seeking any adjournment, v) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously on merits by giving opportunity to both the parties. No order as to costs.