Judgment :- 1. Heard Mr.Maninarayanan, for petitioner and Mr.P. Prabhakar, for respondent. 2. This revision is directed against the order in I. A. No.256 of 1994 in O.S. No.291 of 1992 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, dated 29.6.1994, allowing the petition underO.8-A, C.P.C. That application was filed by the defendant in the suit. The petitioner/ plaintiff filed O.S. No.291 of 1992 against the sole defendant (respondent herein) for recovery of a sum of Rs.18,000 towards principal together with interest at 12% per annum, in all amounting to Rs.26,462. It is the specific case of the petitioner herein that the respondent/ defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.18,000 from the petitioner and executed a promissory note at Tanjore on 12.9.1989 agreeing to repay the said sum with interest at 12% per annum to the petitioner or to his order on demand. In spite of repeated demands, the respondent has not chosen to pay any sum due on the promissory note and therefore the petitioner gave lawyers notice on 4.4.1991 which was received by the defendant on 10.4.1991. But there is no reply from the defendant. It is also stated that the respondent is not entitled to the benefits of any of the Debt Relief Act, since the respondent is employed as a clerk in Union Bank of India and is getting about Rs.50,000 per annum by way of salary. 3. The respondent filed written statement denying the allegations contained in the plaint. According to him, the suit is not maintainable and that he has not executed any promissory note in favour of the petitioner herein and has not borrowed Rs.18,000 from the petitioner/ plaintiff. It is his specific case that the respondent/ defendant has no dealing with the petitioner/ plaintiff and he does not know the plaintiff and that he has dealings with one Sukumaran, who is employed as Clerk in Bank of Madura. The said Sukumaran is doing money lending business and the respondent/ defendant has obtained a loan of Rs.7,500 from the said Sukumaran. The said Sukumaran has obtained blank promissory notes from his debtors and for repayment of the loan amount, the said Sukumaran has obtained several blank cheques from the respondent/ defendant. It is also his case that he paid Rs.8,000 by way of cheques. The said Sukumaran has obtained blank promissory notes from his debtors and for repayment of the loan amount, the said Sukumaran has obtained several blank cheques from the respondent/ defendant. It is also his case that he paid Rs.8,000 by way of cheques. It is also contended that the said Sukumaran is a necessary party to the suit and the suit is bad for nonjoinder of Sukumaran. 4. The respondent thereupon filed LA. No.264 of 1994 under 0.8-A and Sec.151, C.P.C., for impleading the said Sukumaran and Mrs. Meena, wife of Sukumaran as defendants 2 and 3 in the suit. According to the respondent all his dealings are only with one Sukumaran and he received the amounts and cheques from the respondent and therefore he is a necessary party in this case. It is further averred that the respondent/ defendant is entitled to contribution and indemnity by him. Moreover Sukumarans wife Meena also got dealings by issuing a withdrawal form with the respondent herein and she is also a necessary party to the proceedings. According to the respondent their presence is necessary for the purpose of real determination of the issue in this case and in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings the presence of the proposed party is necessary and the presence of the proposed parties does not alter the nature of the case or the cause of action. 5. The said application was resisted by the petitioner as plaintiff by filing a counter statement. It is contended on the side of the petitioner that the respondent cannot invoke third party procedure under 0.8-A, C.P.C., and unless the respondent admits execution of promissory note in favour of the petitioner/ plaintiff and then pleads payment to Sukumaran and unless the defendant pleads that Sukumaran is authorised to receive payments on behalf of the plaintiff, the question of contribution of indemnity will not arise. 6. Learned Subordinate Judge however by his order dated 29.6.1994 ordered the application as prayed for and impleaded the proposed parties as defendants 2 and 3 in the suit. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff has filed the above revision in this Court. 7. I have heard Mr.Maninarayanan for petitioner and Mr.P. Prabhakar for the respondent. I have gone through the pleadings and also the provisions in 0.8-A, C.P.C. and also the order impugned in this revision. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff has filed the above revision in this Court. 7. I have heard Mr.Maninarayanan for petitioner and Mr.P. Prabhakar for the respondent. I have gone through the pleadings and also the provisions in 0.8-A, C.P.C. and also the order impugned in this revision. In my opinion, learned Subordinate Judge has failed to note that in the nature of the pleadings raised and defence projected there is no scope to invokeO.8-A of C.P.C. and those provisions are wholly inapplicable. The lower court also has miserably failed to note that 0.8-A would apply only when the defendant is entitled to claim indemnity and contribution and in this case, the defendant denied execution of the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and that being so, the defendant is not entitled to have re.course to 0.8-A, C.P.C. The reasoning given by the lower court, in my opinion, are unsound and unsustainable. I have already noticed thatO.8-A will apply only if the defendant is entitled to claim indemnity and contribution and that in this case the defendant has filed written statement denying the execution of the pronote in favour of the plaintiff. According to the defendant one Sukumaran obtained a blank signature in a pronote after paying Rs.7,500 and that the defendant has repaid Rs.12,500 to Sukumaran and that the said Sukumaran promised to return the pronote. In view of the above contentions, it is not clear as to how the defendant can invoke third party procedure under 0.8-A, Civil Procedure Code. Unless the defendant admits execution of promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and then plead payment to Sukumaran and unless the defendant pleads that Sukumaran is authorised to receive payments on behalf of the plaintiff, the question of contribution or indemnity will not arise. On the other hand, the plea of defendant tantamount to benami, which cannot be entertained in the case of promissory note. Likewise, the attempt on the side of the defendant to implead the wife of Sukumaran by name Meena is also not sustainable. No where in the written statement her name is mentioned. It is obvious that the defendant is attempting to drag on the proceedings on some flimsy and imaginary grounds. 8. O.8-A, C.P.C., deals with third party procedure. Rule I deals with third party notice. No where in the written statement her name is mentioned. It is obvious that the defendant is attempting to drag on the proceedings on some flimsy and imaginary grounds. 8. O.8-A, C.P.C., deals with third party procedure. Rule I deals with third party notice. Rules 2, 3 and 4 deal with effect of notice, default by third party and procedure on default respectively. Rules 5 and 6 deal with third party directions and leave to defend. Rules 7, 8 and 9 deal with costs, questions between codefendants and further parties respectively. 9. For the foregoing reasons, neither Sukumaran nor Meena are necessary parties nor the defendant can seek to implead them invoking the provisions ofO.8-A, C.RC. The very filing of this application at a belated stage cannot at all be entertained and therefore the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tanjore in I.A. No.256 of 1994 is liable to be set aside and this revision is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. In view of the above order, no order is necessary in the C.M.P. 10. Since the suit was filed in the year 1992 and the evidence is half way through, I direct the Subordinate Judge, Tanjore to dispose of the suit on priority basis on or before the end of July, 1997.