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 adve