JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners' application for amendment of the issues has been rejected by the trial court and he has preferred this revision against order dated 24-2-87 passed by Shri P.K. Bhatia, ADJ, No 2. Jaipur City in C.S. No. 60/85. 2. It is contended that in the plaint it has been pleaded that the non- petitioner No.2 advanced a sum of Rs. 7,000/- to petitioner No.1, on interest at the rate of 2 per cent per month and this transaction has been denied by the present petitioners. It has been contended that the burden of proving this transaction should be on the not petitioners. It has also been printed out that the petitioner No. 1 has instituted a separate suit for recovery of the ornaments pledged by him with the non-petitioner No.1 and that dispute being the subject matter of another suit should not be confused with the present one so as to place the burden of proof on the petitioners. According to him the present suit is one, in which four persons are said to be parties to the transaction, while in the other suit the transaction is between two persons only, namely, petitioner No. 1 and non-petitioner No 2. It is contended that the party, which is alleging a transaction should be asked to prove the same instead of mixing up the two transactions and taking them to be reply of each other. 3. Considering the fact that separate suit has been filed in respect of the recovery of ornaments said to have been pledged by the petitioner, it will not be proper to ask him to prove that fact in the present suit. It would have been better if the filing of the other suit has been clearly mentioned in his written statement. But inspite of ambiguous pleadings the transaction which is the subject matter of another, suit should not be mixed up with the present one so as to place the burden of proving issue on the petitioner even after he has denied the loan alleged by the non-petitioners. 4. It may be mentioned here that whenever there is some discrepancy and some difficulty arises in framing issues the court should proceed to examine the parties under Order 10 Rule I Civil Procedure Code in order to clarify the picture. 5. 4. It may be mentioned here that whenever there is some discrepancy and some difficulty arises in framing issues the court should proceed to examine the parties under Order 10 Rule I Civil Procedure Code in order to clarify the picture. 5. Having perused the plaint, written statement, issues and also the plaint in the other suit. I consider it proper that the burden of proving the transaction should be on the non-petitioners. Instead of issue No. 1 as framed by the lower court. the following issue is framed: "whether the plaintiff Heera Kanwar advanced a sum of Rs. 7,000/- by cheque, to petitioner No. 1 on 5.2.1982 on interest at the rate of 2 per cent per month? Accordingly, this petition is accepted.Revision accepted. *******