K. A. SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) THIS civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 8th April 1981 passed by the learned III Addl. Small cause Judge, Bangalore, in SC No. 6995/ 1980 rejecting IA No. III filed by the petitioner under R. 1 of Or. VIII-A of the cp Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the code ). The learned Judge has come to the conclusion that in the written statement, the petitioner has raised a plea that he has paid certain portion of the rent as claimed by the plaintiff, to one Sri Venka, tanarayana Iyer and in case it is found that the petitioner defendant is liable for the claim made by the plaintiff respondent, his right to indemnity against Sri Venkata- narayana Iyer be kept open. After filing the written statement and before the case is set down for trial, the petitioner has filed an application under R. 1 of Or. VIII A of the Code, for issuing notice to the 3rd party (Sri Venkatanarayana Iyer ). That application is rejected on the ground that the same has not been filed along with the written statement. The learned Judge has placed reliance on the wordings contained in sub rule (2) of R. 1 of Or. VIII A of the Code, which are as follows :"an application for leave to issue such notice shall be filed along with the written statement of the said defendant and be accompanied by a draft of the notice sought to be issued. The notice shall state the nature and the grounds of the claim and when the draft of the same is approved by Court with or without corrections, it shall be served on the third party together with a copy of the plaint and a copy of the said defendant's written statement in the manner prescribed for the service of summons". ( 2 ) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the whole object of Or. VIII-A of the Code, is to avoid multiplication of proceedings and to grant relief against the third party in a suit brought against the defendant; therefore, it is submitted that as long as such a plea is raised in the written statement and an application is filed immediately before the case is set down for trial, no prejudice whatsoever is caused to the plaintiff if such an application is allowed. ( 3 ) ON the contrary, it is contended on behalf of the respondent plaintiff that the wordings contained in sub rule (2) of R. 1 of Or VIII-A of the Code, are clear and there is no ambiguity whatsoever, and as per the wordings therein, it is incumbent upon the defendant seeking indemnity against the third party to file an application along with the written statement and failure to do so, will not enable him to file such an application subsequent to the filing of the written statement and the court will not be justified in allowing such an application. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Lakshmana Gouda v. State of Karnataka (1) and also a decision of the High Court of Madras in sundardas v. Indian Bank Ltd. , (2 ). The aforesaid decision of this Court is not on the point with which we are concerned in this case, therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the same in detail. 4 (a ). It is however contended that when a statute states that certain thing is to be done in a certain manner, the possibility of doing it in any other manner is excluded. This proposition is not without any exception. It all depends upon the context in which the statute directs for doing certain thing in a certain manner, and also the purpose which is sought to be achieved and the person or the authority who is required by the statute to do it and the resultant effect flowing from non compliance with such a provision. Or. VIII-A of the Code, relates to third party procedure. It is a well accepted rule of interpretation that procedural enactments should normally be construed liberally and in such a manner so as to render the enforcement of substantive rights effective. Therefore, in the matter of interpretation of procedural enactments, one has to take care to see that any interpretation placed on such enactments does not create any obstacle or hindrance in enforcing the substantive rights for the purpose of which the procedural law is enacted. When the object of the enactment is to avoid multiplication of proceedings, and a necessary plea is raised in the written statement, in such a case, if an application under Or. When the object of the enactment is to avoid multiplication of proceedings, and a necessary plea is raised in the written statement, in such a case, if an application under Or. VIII A of the Code is filed before the next step is taken in a suit or proceeding in the nature of Small Cause cases, it would be a substantial compliance with the Rule. Further, in such a situation, no prejudice whatsoever would be caused to the plaintiff if such an application is allowed. In the case of a suit, after raising such a plea in the written statement, if an application is filed before the framing of issues, the plaintiff will not be put to any inconvenience and no prejudice will be caused to him. Similarly in the case of Small Cause suits also if such a plea is raised in the written statement and an application is filed under R. 1 (2) of Or. VIII A of the code, before the case is set down for trial, no prejudice whatsoever would be caused to the plaintiff. Here, there is no question of acquiring any right as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent because even in the absence of such an application made under Or. VIII A of the Code, it is always open for the defendant to file a separate suit and recover the decretal amount from the third party if he is entitled to do so. Therefore, no fresh right is acquired by filing an application under or. VIII-A of the Code. Hence, the contention that the application should be filed along with the written statement only and not subsequent to the filing of the written statement, cannot be accepted. Even though sub rule (2) of R. 1 of Or. VIII A of the Code, provides that an application for leave to issue such notice shall be filed along with the written statement, but it will not advance the cause of justice nor it will in any way further the object of the enactment if it is interpreted literally that if such an application is not filed along with the written statement, no such application can be filed in the suit even before the next step is taken in the suit, even though such a plea has already been raised in the written statement. Thus such an interpretation will come in the way of enforcing substantive right. As long as such a plea is raised in the written statement and an application is filed immediately before the next step is taken in a suit or proceeding in the nature of Small Cause case, there will be substantial compliance with the provisions of sub-rule (2) of R. 1 of Or. VIII A of the Code, and by allowing such an application, if the same is entitled to be allowed, the object of the enactment will be fulfilled ; therefore, the learned Judge is not right in holding that the application filed subsequent to the filing of the written statement is not maintainable. ( 5 ) IN the aforesaid decision, the High court of Madras was not concerned with the question as to whether the application as required by sub-rule (2) of R, 1 of Or. VIII -A of the Code should be allowed to be filed immediately after the filing of the written statement and before any further step was taken in a suit or proceeding. The general principles are laid down with regard to the question as to when the third party's application should be allowed. Hence, the said decision is not of much assistance to the respondent in the present case. It is not necessary to consider the application on merits, since the learned judge has rejected the application on the ground that it is not maintainable as it is not filed along with the written statement. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, the civil revision petition is allowed. The order dated 8-4-1981 passed by the learned II Addl. Small Cause judge, Bangalore in SC No. 6995 of 1980 is hereby set aside. The application IA-III is remitted to the Court of the Small causes, Bangalore with a direction to consider the same afresh in the light of the observations made in this order. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, it is necessary to notice the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that by allowing the application at this stage it will result in delaying the proceeding and thereby it will cause prejudice to the plaintiff's case. This contention need not be gone into at this stage since the application is not considered by the learned Judge on merits. It is open for the respondent to put forth this contention before the lower Court. This contention need not be gone into at this stage since the application is not considered by the learned Judge on merits. It is open for the respondent to put forth this contention before the lower Court. --- *** --- .