( 1 ) THIS is an application in revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against the judgment and decree passed by the Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Lucknow.

( 2 ) IT appears that a suit was instituted by the plaintiffs opposite-parties on the basis of a pronote, for Rs. 260/- alleged to have been executed by the defendant. The defendant, filed a written statement denying the execution of the pronote. The plaintiff entered into the witness-box but examined no other witness. The defendant also entered into the witness-box and stated on oath that he had not put his signature on the pronote or the receipt the learned Judge then compared the disputed signatures with some other admitted signatures of the defendant and came to the conclusion that the two signatures were made by the defendant. He then believed the plaintiffs evidence and decreed the claim. The procedure adopted by the learned Judge cannot be said to be good. It is no doubt open to a court to express its own opinion about the identity or otherwise of a disputed handwriting or thumb-impression but it would not be safe to base a conclusion entirely on such a comparison. It wa