P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.
1. The learned Judge was wrong in dismissing the application under Order VIII-A, Rule 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the third party. Generally speaking, there will not be such a privity in a claim falling under Order VIII -A which the defendant sets up against a third party. If there was direct privity then the third party would have been a necessary party. I do not see how the plaintiff will in any way be hurt if the application is allowed and G. Ramaswami Reddiar is made a third party. If the defendant is able to prove his case that Ramaswami Reddiar undertook to discharge the plaintiff's claim, then it would only mean that there will be two sources from which the plaintiff's claim could be satisfied. In my opinion this is a case to which Order VIII-A, Rule 1 will apply and the learned Subordinate Judge wrongly refused to exercise the jurisdiction which vested in him under that provision. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the application made by the petitioner under Order VIII-A is allowed. There will be no order as to costs either here or in the Court below.