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 HRC 2303/1992 on the file of the II additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, rejecting. A. No. 8 filed by the revision-petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 3 ) THE prayer made in. A. 8 filed by the Revision-petitioner/2nd 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 HRC. 2303/1992 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. 09. 1995 as Second Respondent. After he was brought on record as Respondent No. 2 he filed. A. No. 8 praying that he should be permitted to lead evidence in his capacity as 2nd respondent. ( 5 ) THE learned Small Causes Judge rejected. A. No. 8 on the ground that the 2nd respondent has already been examined in the case as RW2. True, but RW2 (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.