Judgment.- 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 the present case the recital in the promissory note is to the effect that cash consideration was paid. But in the plaint the plaintiff has pleaded that the consideration was some lease amount that was due from the defendant. The plaintiff has practically shifted the ground, and he is not relying upon the recital in the promissory note for the nature or the quantum of consideration. In such cases I feel that the decision in Palaniappa Chettiar v. Rajagopal Pandarathar3 should prevail; otherwise it will cause serious injustice to the defendant, if he is called upon to open the case and prove want of consideration. Mr. Rangaswami Aiyangar appearing for the respondent has not been able to place before me any decision which is contra to the one relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. His main point seems to be that since the defendant has applied to the Court nearly seven months after the issue had been framed, there is no equity in his favour in having come to this Court for revision of the order refusing to recast the issue. I should say I am not very much impressed with this argument. His main point seems to be that since the defendant has applied to the Court nearly seven months after the issue had been framed, there is no equity in his favour in having come to this Court for revision of the order refusing to recast the issue. I should say I am not very much impressed with this argument. The next point raised by learned counsel for the respondent is that a matter like this ought not to be considered and decided upon in revision, but the defendant should be allowed to go through the entire trial and that he should take up the point on appeal when the decision goes against him and particularly when it was always open to him to take up the point that the burden of proof was wrongly cast upon him. I do not think that is in the interests of justice or fairness to the parties that the matter should be allowed to go through like this, when it can be attended to and rectified even at the earliest possible stage. In this view, I am not impressed with this argument of the learned counsel either. On a consideration of the facts of the case I am inclined to hold that in a case like this where the plaintiff does not want to rely upon the original recital in the promissory note but wants to set up a different form of consideration for the suit pronote, he ought to prove the consideration, and the burden therefore is initially on him rather than on the defendant who denies consideration. No doubt the defendant, in any event, will deny consideration, whether it be in cash or in some other form; but that itself would not take away his right to put the plaintiff on his responsibility to prove the consideration to start with. In this view I think there is substance in this petition, which is allowed with costs. K.C. ----- Petition allowed.