In this petition the point raised is as to whether the learned District Munsiff was correct in throwing the burden of proof on the defendant when he framed the issue in the following manner: “Whether the suit note is not supported by consideration?” The defendant sought by way of an application to have this issue recast in the following manner: “Whether the defendant executed the suit note for any lease amount due?”

The learned District Munsiff has relied upon the decisions reported in Balkisandas v. Rambakas1 and Premraj v. Nathmal2 . There it has been held that a mere admission that the consideration was not the one recited in the negotiable instrument would not shift the burden on to the plaintiff when the defendant denies consideration. These two decisions are of single Judges and so far as this Court is concerned, as laid down by the decision in Palaniappa Chettiar v. Rajagopal Pandarathar3, the rule has been that when the plaintiff contends that the consideration is different from the one that is recited in the negotiable instrument the burden of proving want of consideration does not rest with the defendant but proof of consideration shifts on to the plaintiff. In t