( 1 ) THE defendant in OS,275 of 1972, on the file of the First Addl. Munsiff at Belgaum, is the petitioner. The respondent is the plaintiff, and he has not appeared in this petition though served with the notice of the petition. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 2,500 and odd from the defendant alleging that he had paid that amount to the defendant by way of hand-loan and the defendant had promised to return that amount within six months from the date of payment. The payment off the amount had been made by means of a crossed demand draft in favour of the defendant. The defendant contended that he had received that amount from the plaintiff not by way of loan, but because the plaintiff was due to him that amount as the plaintiff had, on previous occasions borrowed money from him (defendant) and the total amounted to Rs. 2,500. ( 2 ) AN issue was framed throwing the burden on the defendant. By this issue, the defendant was asked to establish that the plaintiff had borrowed amounts on different occasions and that amounted to Rs. 2,500 and, therefore the plaintiff had re paid that amount by way of the demand draft. The defendant filed IA-I praying for deletion of the said issue "and for recasting the issue in the following manner : whether the plaintiff proves that he has paid Rs. 2,500 to the defendant as loan and he is entitled to it. " ( 3 ) THE learned Munsiff rejected IA. I and that is the order challenged in this revision petition. Sri B. R Rohidekar, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, urged that there were no circumstances warranting any presumptioin of such a loan having been given by the plaintiff to the defendant and, therefore, the burden ordinarily lay on the plaintiff to, establishrhat he had advanced the sum of Rs. 2,500 by way of loan to the defendant, and the defendant had agreed to re-pay the same within six months from that date, and this has been ignored by the learned First addl. Munsiff and, hence, there is material irregularity causing serious prejudice to the defendant because the defendant would lose his valuable right of adducing rebuttal evidence. 2,500 by way of loan to the defendant, and the defendant had agreed to re-pay the same within six months from that date, and this has been ignored by the learned First addl. Munsiff and, hence, there is material irregularity causing serious prejudice to the defendant because the defendant would lose his valuable right of adducing rebuttal evidence. ( 4 ) IT is ah admitted fact that the plaintiff gave a crossed demand draft to the defendant and that was for a sum of Rs. 2,500. It !is by now well settled that the burden is always on the plaintiff, except in exceptional cases where the law dictates otherwise, and to satisfy the Court that circumstances existed, which entitled him to the decree he asks. Nowhere is there any provision warranting a presumption to be raised under such cirmstances that payment of Rs. 2,500 by the plaintiff by means of a, demand draft, is by way of a loan. In view of this, the ordinary principle of throwing the burden on the plaintiff, has to be followed. This view is also expressed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Bobba Satyanayana v. Maddineni Sree Ramulu AIR. 1961 AP. 481. . In this view of the matter, the burden ought to be on the plaintiff in this case and that shows that IA.-1 filed by the defendant is to be allowed. ( 5 ) THE correct placing of the onus of proof is a vital point of procedure and an incorrect placing of onus may, therefore amount to a ' material irregularity, especially where the effect of requiring the defendant to lead evidence seriously prejudices him and deprives him of the very valuable right of adducing evidence in rebuttal of that adduced by the plaintiff. Such prejudicial effect in the procedure is not capable of being remedied; therefore, the High Court has to intere ferc in exercise of its powers under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 6 ) IN Shanker Lal v. Deena Nath, AIR 1951 Raj. 79 , sirmlal circumstances existed. Such prejudicial effect in the procedure is not capable of being remedied; therefore, the High Court has to intere ferc in exercise of its powers under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 6 ) IN Shanker Lal v. Deena Nath, AIR 1951 Raj. 79 , sirmlal circumstances existed. The plaintiff had filed the suit for recovery of a certain amount alleging that he had advanced it to the defendant by way of loan and the defendant had promised to return it, and the defendant, while admitting receipt of that amount, had contended that the plaintiff had simply returned the amount that was due to him (defendant) and it was not by way of loan. The issue "that was framed was whether the plaintiff had stood surety for the debt of one Thakur Karri Singh and whether the defendant received the amount towards the debt of Ram Singh. The defendant applied for deletion of the issue and for recasting of the issue. That request was refused and the Rajasthan High Court ruled in favour of the defendant. It is plain that the said decision is on all fours with this case and I respectfully agree with the view expressed. ( 7 ) IN view of the foregoing reasons, this revision petition is entitled to succeed and the same is allowed. 1 set aside the order dt. 9-7-1973 passed on IA.-I in OS. 275 of 1972 by the First Addl. Munsiff, Belgaum, and allow IA.-I. No order as to costs. --- *** --- .