JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) PETITIONER-DEFENDANTS have preferred this civil revision against the order passed by the 1st Civil Judge Class II, Morena, dated 6-1-1984 in Civil original Suit No. 50-B of 1981. ( 2. ) PLAINTIFF-NON-APPLICANT No. 1 filed a suit against the petitioner-defendants with the allegations that on 21-2-1981 the defendants borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and on 24-1-1981 issued a cheque for the same amount in favour of the plaintiff hut the cheque was dishonoured by the Bank on presentation for payment. Defendant denied the case of the plaintiff of having ever borrowed an amount of Rs. 10,000/- on 21-2-1981. Defendant further alleged that on 21-1-1981 there was an auction by tenders in Government Department, When he was persuaded by the plaintiff to issue a cheque for Rs, 10,000/- in his favour and in consideration he would file a higher rate in his tender so that the tender of petitioner-defendant No. 2 would be accepted. Thus, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff acquired the said cheque by playing fraud upon him and fraudulently presented the same for payment. ( 3. ) THE trial Court framed the issues and the trial commenced Plaintiff examined two of his witnesses and it is then that he filed an application that as the burden of proof lies upon the defendant, he should be directed to examine his defence witnesses. The trial Court without altering any issue, previously framed, passed the impugned order whereby it ordered that the defendant should lead his defence. It is this order which is being challenged in this petition. ( 4. ) SHRI R. C. Lahoti, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the right to begin the examination of the witnesses during the hearing of the suit is provided in Rule 1 of Order 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to this provision, the plaintiff has a right to begin the examination of his witnesses and once this examination in the proper order has begun, it should not have been disrupted or changed by the trial Court. ( 5. ) AS a general rule, according to the procedural law, no doubt it is the plaintiff who has to prove his claim by positive proof, for, the Court has to see whether there is a proof of claim before it needs to enquire as to the truth or otherwise of the defence. ( 5. ) AS a general rule, according to the procedural law, no doubt it is the plaintiff who has to prove his claim by positive proof, for, the Court has to see whether there is a proof of claim before it needs to enquire as to the truth or otherwise of the defence. It is open to the plaintiff to say that although he has the right to begin he may rest content with relying upon the averments made in the written statement. Yet evidence need not always be led by the party who has the right to begin and on whom lies the burden of proof; it is open to him TO sustain the onus by facts which he may elicit in cross-examination of the other party or his witnesses. In order to come to the conclusion concerning on whom the legal burden of proof rests, in addition to the substantive law, the pleadings of the parties coupled with documents that they produced and the admissions, if any concerning such documents have to be taken into account. ( 6. ) UNDER section 102 of the Evidence Act, the burden of proof rests on the party who would fail if no evidence at all were give on either side. Where the defendant admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff but contends that the plaintiff is not entitled to any part of the relief which he seeks, it is the defendant the gets the right to begin. ( 7. ) ORDER 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure in terms speaks of the hearing of a suit and not the trial of the suit. A court is concerned with the trial of a suit from the time when it is instituted. The hearing of a suit is only a part of the trial of the suit. The determination of the question as to which party has a right to begin is an integral part of the hearing itself. ( 8. ) IN the light of the above discussion, I propose to examine the question at hand after perusal of the pleadings of the parties. It is an admitted fact that the defendant issued a cheque of Rs. 10,000/- in favour of the plaintiff which could not be cashed by him and hence the suit has to be filed. ( 8. ) IN the light of the above discussion, I propose to examine the question at hand after perusal of the pleadings of the parties. It is an admitted fact that the defendant issued a cheque of Rs. 10,000/- in favour of the plaintiff which could not be cashed by him and hence the suit has to be filed. No doubt the defendant says that the said cheque was obtained by fraud yet the person alleging fraud has to shoulder the burden to prove it. If the execution of cheque is admitted, by the defendant but he says that it was obtained by fraud, which is denied no doubt by the plaintiff and if no evidence were given on either side, the plaintiff would succeed as the execution of cheque is not disputed and the fraud is not proved, therefore, the burden of proof is upon the defendant. Trial Court has rightly held so in the impugned judgment. ( 9. ) THE cheque is defined in section 6 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called as the Act ). A cheque is a bill of exchange drawn on a banker payable on demand. The touch-stone by which a cheque is tested is that it must be payable instantly on demand. Cheque is essentially a commercial paper possessing the attributes of a contract. It is executory with nature. It is a chose in action and represents money and it is a vehicle for the delivery of money. It is thus a complete negotiable instrument. ( 10. ) SECTION 118 (2) of the Act is reproduced below : "118. Until the contrary is proved the following presumptions shall be made: (a) That every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, endorsed negotiated or transferred for consideration. " Thus, this provision laid down the special rules of evidence and has been intended to apply only as between the parties to the instrument or those claiming under them. The presumption under this section is that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration. This rule of presumption obtained even before the Act came into force; or it finds a place in illustration (c) to section 114 of the evidence Act which gives the Court discretion to presume consideration in the case of bills of exchange. The presumption under this section is that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration. This rule of presumption obtained even before the Act came into force; or it finds a place in illustration (c) to section 114 of the evidence Act which gives the Court discretion to presume consideration in the case of bills of exchange. But a decree cannot be given for the amount on the strength of the presumption. This section provides for nothing more than the rule that a note or cheque prima facie imports consideration and it does not justify any presumption as to the quantum of consideration. ( 11. ) SECTION 118 (a) of the Act provides special rule of evidence in the case of a negotiable instrument contrary to the case of an ordinary contract. It is, therefore, on the face of the presumption that the defendant has to prove want of consideration, in other words, to rebut the presumption. The statutory presumption in favour of this being consideration for every negotiable instrument continues unless it is rebutted. Defendant may discharge this burden of proof placed upon him under section 118 (a) of the Act either by producing definite evidence, showing that consideration has not passed, or by relying upon facts and circumstances of the case and also by referring to the flaws in the evidence of the plaintiff and may then contend that the presumption has been rebutted. ( 12. ) ISSUE No. 1 is required to be proved by the plaintiff and in absence of the special rule of evidence under the procedural law, the plaintiff rightly started his evidence. But as soon as the special rule of evidence was brought to the notice of the trial Court, it rightly ordered by the impugned order that the defendant is bound to start his evidence on the face of the presumption against him. The burden to prove issues Nos. 2 and 3 is on the defendant. If the defendant begins his evidence, as the law requires him to do, no prejudice in any manner is likely to be caused to him. There seems to be no error in the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial Court. ( 13. ) CONSEQUENTLY, the order passed in the impugned order is upheld and this petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.