ORDER : This is a revision application by Amarsingh, plaintiff, against the judgment of Shri B.B.L. Agarwal, Judge, Small Cause Court, Sehore, dismissing the plaintiff's suit for the recovery of Rs. 283-13-0 from Gangoo. 2. The applicant challenges this order on two main grounds, firstly, that the trial Court had wrongly drawn a presumption under Section 114, Evidence Act from the fact that all the witnesses present at the time of the advance of Rs. 400/- had not been examined and secondly, that the trial Court should not have taken upon itself the role of an expert in determining whether the alleged signatures of the defendant on the receipt were forged. It was also urged that after the plaintiff adduced oral evidence to prove the signature, a duty was cast upon the defendant to examine an expert, if necessary, to show that the signature was forged. 3. The first contention has considerable force. In a civil suit and also in a criminal case it is not necessary that a party should examine all the possible witnesses otherwise the trial would be unnecessarily prolonged without serving any useful purpose. Where a party examines only a few witnesses and the Court is inclined to draw an adverse inference from the non-examination of the remaining eye-witnesses, it is but equitable that it should be made clear to that party that other witnesses be also examined and that in case of failure an adverse inference would be drawn. All these precautions are necessary to safe-guard that no party is prejudiced as a result of a presumption which is not fully warranted by the law. In this connection it may further be observed that if the defendant thought that the other witnesses were not present at the time of the advance of the loan, he could easily examine them. This was not done. In other words, the Judge, Small Cause Court, was wrong in drawing a presumption against the plaintiff when he did not examine all the possible witnesses. 4. This was not done. In other words, the Judge, Small Cause Court, was wrong in drawing a presumption against the plaintiff when he did not examine all the possible witnesses. 4. It is true that the Courts of law are not to play the role of a handwriting or thumb-mark expert but where signature or thumb-mark does not appear to be similar to the one not in dispute the Courts can direct the party placing reliance on the signature or thumb-mark to prove its genuineness by examining an expert and in other cases where the signature or thumb-mark does not appear to be forged, it is the duty of the defendant who wants the Court to give a finding to the contrary to prove his case by leading clear evidence including that of an expert. I have examined the disputed signature and find that it is different from the usual signature of the defendant. The plaintiff has given an explanation why this signature is different. A correct opinion as to the genuineness or otherwise of a signature or thumb-mark could have been formed only after it had been examined by an expert, and in the present circumstances the plaintiff could be directed to take such a step. I find that the plaintiff was not given such an opportunity. When the expert is examined he should be asked to express his opinion not only on the genuineness or otherwise of the signature but also on whether there is any possibility of the Revenue Stamp being affixed over some writing. This appears necessary as on cursory examination it is felt that a part of the writing emanates from below the Stamp. I would, however, like to make it clear that this observation should not be treated to mean that in the opinion of this Court the signature is forged and the stamp was affixed to conceal writing or signature of some other person. It will be for the trial Court to form its own independent opinion on both the points, after taking into consideration the evidence already adduced or to be adduced by the parties. 5. It will be for the trial Court to form its own independent opinion on both the points, after taking into consideration the evidence already adduced or to be adduced by the parties. 5. In view of the fact that the trial had proceeded from a wrong angle and the trial Court did not give an opportunity to the plaintiff to examine an expert, it is but fair that the case be remanded for rehearing so that justice may be done. 6. The revision application is hereby allowed and the case is remanded to the lower Court for re-hearing according to the law after registering it at its original number. Costs of the revision would abide the final decision of the case. Revision application allowed.