M. B. VISHWANATH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD admitted. ( 2 ) IN this revision petition the second respondent in the court below (revision-petitioner herein) has challenged the order dated 14-11-1995 passed in h. r. c. No. 2303 of 1992 on the file of the ii additional judge, court of small causes, Bangalore, rejecting la. No. 8 filed by the revision-petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 3 ) THE prayer made in la. No. 8 filed by the revision-petitioner and second respondent is that he should be permitted to lead his evidence in his capacity as 2nd respondent. ( 4 ) TO appreciate the point for determination the few facts necessary are: the eviction petition h. r. c. No. 2303 of 1992 was filed by the landlord ramachandra murthy against the respondent-tenant Smt. Lalithamma. At the instance of the landlord, the revision-petitioner rangappa has been brought on record on 23-9-1995 as second respondent. After he was brought on record as respondent No. 2 he filed la. No. 8 praying that he should be permitted to lead evidence in his capacity as 2nd respondent. ( 5 ) THE learned small causes judge rejected la. No. 8 on the ground that the 2nd respondent has already been examined in the case of rw 2. True, but rw 2 (present revision-petitioner) has been examined as a witness for the tenant Smt. Lalithamma. The fact that the revision-petitioner who was subsequently brought on record as a 2nd respondent has been examined as a witness for the tenant, cannot be allowed to come in the way of the revision-petitioner (2nd respondent) leading his evidence as a party. In that view of the matter the order passed by the lower court is perverse. ( 6 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the lower court is directed to permit the revision-petitioner (2nd respondent in the court below) to adduce his evidence as a party. The revision petition allowed accordingly. --- *** --- .