( 1 ) 1. This is a 1st defendant's appeal directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 31-10-1986 passed in OS. No. 1136/1980 on the file of the II Additional City Civil Judge, bangalore City. In the course of this Judgment we will refer to the parties by the ranks assigned to them in the trial Court. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff-Kapurchand, a businessman carrying on business at Bangalore paid in all a sum of Rs. 60,000/- to the defendant, a partnership firm, discounting three cheques drawn by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant. He obtained on printed discount forms the signatures of the partner of the 2nd defendant firm evidencing payment of cash to the 2nd defendant. When the cheques were presented after the due dates, they came to be dishonoured. Therefore, the suit for recovery of money together with interest at 18 per cent per annum which the 2nd defendant to pay at the time of discounting in case of dishonour of the cheques. The defendants were served with notice of suit and only the 1st defendant entered appearance. The 2nd defendant did not appear and therefore he was placed ex parte. ( 3 ) THE 1st defendant filed the written statement admitting the fact of having drawn the cheques in certain circumstances in favour of the 2nd defendant. He also took the stand in his written statement that the plaintiff was not a holder in due course and he ran the risk of negotiating the post-dated cheques and therefore on account of non-performance of certain obligations undertaken by the 2nd defendant at the time of drawing the cheques in his favour, he stopped payment on those cheques and therefore the cheques were dishonoured and as such he was not liable to make good any amount to the plaintiff as he had received no consideration for the cheques. On such pleadings, the Court framed as many as 8 issues which are as follows : (1) Does the plaintiff prove that on 10-3-1973 the defendant No. 2 discounted with the plaintiff the cheques bearing no. FS. 43142, FS No. 431463 and FS 431468 dated 10-5-1973, 27-5-73 and 30-4-1973 respectively for Rs. 20,000/- each drawn by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 for valuable consideration? (2) Does plaintiff prove that all the three cheques were dishonoured? (3) Does plaintiff prove that defendant no. FS. 43142, FS No. 431463 and FS 431468 dated 10-5-1973, 27-5-73 and 30-4-1973 respectively for Rs. 20,000/- each drawn by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 for valuable consideration? (2) Does plaintiff prove that all the three cheques were dishonoured? (3) Does plaintiff prove that defendant no. 2 agreed to pay interest at the rate of 18% p. a. in case of dishonour till payment? (4) Whether plaintiff is a holder in due course for valuable consideration and defendant No. 1 is not entitled to stop payment of above cheques? (5) Whether the suit is bad for the reasons stated in para-1 of written statement? (6) Does defendant No. 1 prove that he issued the above cheques under the circumstances mentioned in para-7 of his written statement? (7) Does defendant No. 1 prove that the above cheques are vitiated on ground of fraud as stated in para-9 of written statement? (8) Whether the suit is maintainable as against defendant No. 1?the plaintiff examined himself and got marked as many as 9 documents. The defendant examined himself in part and got marked two documents. On appreciating the evidence on record and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the suit has come to be decreed as prayed for. Therefore, the present appeal. ( 4 ) BEFORE us three grounds have been canvassed. They are: (1) The suit was not maintainable for reason that the plaintiff was not a holder in due course; (2) That plaintiff clearly admitted in his cross-examination that he was not the person who presented the cheques for payment to the Bank concerned and therefore he could not file the suit; (3) That the Court below did not take into account the evidence produced by the defendant and therefore the judgment and Decree are liable to be set aside. Therefore the questions that fall for our determination are whether the above contentions should be upheld. ( 5 ) 5 The 1st ground urged does not stand the scrutiny of the Court. The learned Judge has examined that question in detail and having regard to the definition 'holder in due course' in Section 9 of the Negotiable Instruments act (hereinafter referred to as the act) has come to the conclusion having regard to the oral and documentary evidence of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was a holder in due course. The learned Judge has examined that question in detail and having regard to the definition 'holder in due course' in Section 9 of the Negotiable Instruments act (hereinafter referred to as the act) has come to the conclusion having regard to the oral and documentary evidence of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was a holder in due course. The fact that cheques were drawn in favour of the 2nd defendant by the 1st defendant was admitted in the written statement and was therefore not required to be proved by the plaintiff. The plaintiff in the course of his oral testimony in the trial court has said that he knew the 2nd defendant for a number of years as a businessman in the area and therefore negotiated the cheques and obtained the necessary documents in the form of the discount forms as at Exhibits p7, P8 and P9 on different dates. He has also said that he paid the sum of Rs. 20,000/- the face value of each of the cheques to the 2nd defendant. He produced the cheques themselves as at Exhibits-P1, P2 and p3. He also produced the endorsements is sued by the Bank intimating that the cheques could not be encashed for the reasons indicated. The learned Judge has recorded that there was nothing useful elicited by the 1st defendant in the cross-examination of plaintiff which induced the Court below to disbelieve the oral testimony of the plaintiff or the documentary evidence produced by him. Therefore, found in his favour on all the issues. ( 6 ) 6. Now, if we look at Sec. 9 of the Act which is as follows:"9. Holder in due course.- "holder in due course" means any person who for consideration became the possessor of a promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque if payable to bearer, or the payee or indorsee thereof, if (payable to order,) before the amount mentioned in it became payable, and without having sufficient cause to believe that any defect existed in the title of the person from whom he derived his title,"it is not only the endorsee who becomes a holder in due course but also a person who gets possession of the negotiable instruments for consideration, which, means, he need not be an endorsee to be a holder in due course. Exhibits P7, P8 and P9 clearly evidences the manner in which the plaintiff obtained possession of Exhibits P1, P2 and P3. Therefore, that he acquired the cheques in question for consideration cannot be disputed. Once that is established satisfactorily, the Court below did not commit any error of law in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff was a holder in due course and therefore could maintain a suit to recover moneys from the drawyer when the cheques had been dishonoured. In any event, we should not disregard the fact that signature of the plaintiff is to be found on the reverse of all the cheques. We have carefully scrutinised the cheques in the records summoned from the lower Court. There is no endorsement as such by the payee of the cheques calling upon the Bank to pay the endorsee. There is merely a signature of the partner of the 2nd defendant firm and the seal. Below that is found the signature of the plaintiff. Further below that is the seal of the firm which evidently had presented the cheques to the Bank. It is, in that circumstance, that the Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was the holder in due course and could enforce the payment on the negotiable instruments in question as they were dishonoured. ( 7 ) 7. We must agree with the conclusion reached and we do not find any flaw in the reasoning adopted by the trial Court in appreciating the evidence though our attention was drawn to the fact the learned Counsel for the appellant that the plaintiff had admitted in the cross-examination that he had not presented the cheques to the Bank. That would not make any difference. The drawer of the cheque is liable to pay or make good the payment to the payee and every other holder in due course. Therefore, it is immaterial as to which one of the holders in due course presented the cheques as long as the law permits each and every one of the payee and the holder in due course to enforce the payment under the act. We therefore reject the argument. Therefore, the grounds 1 and 2 are rejected for the reasons given by us. ( 8 ) 8. We therefore reject the argument. Therefore, the grounds 1 and 2 are rejected for the reasons given by us. ( 8 ) 8. The last ground urged that no consideration was passed by the 2nd defendant when the cheque was drawn in his favour and the Court has not noticed that Exhibits D1 and D2 the agreements, in terms of which the cheques were issued should not detain us long. At the out-set we should reject the argument cursorily in view of Sec. 118 (a) of the act. Section 118 (a) of the Act is as follows:"of consideration.- (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, was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred, for consideration;"it is well settled law that presumption is not proof but in the absence of rebuttal, presumption becomes operative. The defendant had an opportunity of examining himself and tendering the evidence, he got marked Exhibits Dl and D2 the agreements between himself and the 2nd defendant. His examination was not complete on a particular date when the Court adjourned for the day and in that circumstance the plaintiff made an application to recall D. W. 1-1st defendant for cross-examination. That application came to be allowed on payment of costs. But the defendant never subjected himself, for cross-examination. For various reasons he remained absent. In that circumstance the Court below has treated his evidence as incomplete and therefore as no evidence at all and as such it has ignored the same. In our view it has rightly so done. Therefore, it is now not open to the defendant to contend before us that for various unavoidable reasons the defendant could not be subjected to cross-examination even though he has orally prayed to receive additional evidence. Original order of the Court on I. A. No. 3 was not challenged by way of revision under Sec. 115 of the C. P. C. In this appeal, I. A. No. 3 was wrongly allowed and therefore constitutes a good ground for remand of the case is also not taken. ( 9 ) 9. In that view of the matter, we do not see any merit in this appeal and we dismiss the same. ( 10 ) 10. ( 9 ) 9. In that view of the matter, we do not see any merit in this appeal and we dismiss the same. ( 10 ) 10. After we had dictated this Judgment in open Court, an oral application was made by the learned Counsel for the appellant to grant certificate of fitness to appeal to the supreme Court as substantial question of law of general importance arises for its consideration. We do not think so. The certificate is refused. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .