1. - This is a defendant's revision against the order of the lower appellate court dated 13th December, 1972 by which he has remanded the case to the trial court for fresh decision.

2. The plaintiff respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,099.75 on the allegation that the defendant-petitioner had executed a pronote for Rs. 1,801/- in his favour. The balance of the amount was made up of interest. The defendant countered the allegation and maintained that she had neither executed the promissory rote and that nothing was due from her. The folio-Ming three issues were framed:

1. Whether the defendant executed the suit pronote of Rs. 1801/- in favour of the plaintiff?

2. In case issue No. 1 is decided in the affirmative whether the suit pronote is without consideration?

3. What shall be the relief?

3. The burden of proof of issue No. I was placed on the plaintiff, while it was placed on the defendant with regard to issue No. 2.

4. The plaintiff led his evidence and examined only himself and after the conclusion of his evidence on 4th August, 1971 filed an application before the trial court stating that he had led evidence on the issue, the burden at which was on him, but that h