JUDGMENT - S.N. VARIAVA, J.:---Mr. Nain, states that defendants do not wish to raise or press issues based on the Money Lenders Act. 2. Other Issues raised and marked settled. 3. Mr. Mody, tenders a voucher dated 25th March, 1975. He submits that the defendants have in the written statement admitted that the voucher was signed by the 1st defendant on behalf of 2nd defendant. He points out that the defendants have admitted that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was received. Mr. Mody, submits that the document speaks for itself. Mr. Mody, submits that the burden of proving that the voucher was signed in blank is on the defendants. In support of his submission Mr. Mody relies upon (Bhubah Mohini Dasi v. Kumud Bala Dasi)1, A.I.R. 1924 Cal. 467, (Inamullah Khan v. Lala Jhumbhu Dayal)2, A.I.R. 1931 All. 159, (Sahdeo Mauar v. Pulesar Monig)3, A.I.R. 1930 Patna 598, (Smt. Sabitri Thakurain v. Mrs. F.A. Savi ors.)4, A.I.R. 1933 Patna 306 and an unreported judgment of this Court dated 14th April 1975 in Suit No. 277 of 1969. Mr. Mody submits that the plaintiff is entitled to merely tender this voucher. 4. Mr. Nain, objects on two grounds. Firstly he submits that the burden of proving issues Nos. 1, 2 and 4 is on the plaintiff. He submits that if the plaintiff has to prove any issue, then the plaintiff must first step into the witness box before the defendants can be called upon to prove their case on any issue. 5. To this Mr. Mody makes a statement that the plaintiff does not desire to and will not lead any oral evidence on Issues 1, 2 and 4. 6. The second objection of Mr. Nain, was that it is for the plaintiff to prove that he had advanced a loan to the defendant No. 1 and/or defendant No. 2. Mr. Nain, submits that the voucher is not a negotiable instrument and no presumptions can be raised. Mr. Nain, submits that it is for the plaintiff to show that the voucher was not a blank voucher. Mr. Nain submits that the plaintiff cannot discharge the burden by merely tendering the voucher. He submits that the plaintiff must step into the witness box. 7. I am unable to accept this submission of Mr. Nain. The defendants have admitted that the 1st defendant has signed the voucher on behalf of the 2nd defendant. Mr. Nain submits that the plaintiff cannot discharge the burden by merely tendering the voucher. He submits that the plaintiff must step into the witness box. 7. I am unable to accept this submission of Mr. Nain. The defendants have admitted that the 1st defendant has signed the voucher on behalf of the 2nd defendant. They have admitted that the sum of Rs. 20,000/- was received by the 2nd defendant. In my view, the voucher speaks for itself. It mentions that the amount was advanced by way of loan. It is for the defendants to prove that the apparent is not the real state of things. In my view, the burden of proving that the voucher was signed in blank and/or that amount of Rs. 20,000/- was towards profits is on the defendants. In my view, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to tender the voucher. Mr. Mody's statement that he is not leading any oral evidence has already been recorded. Objection is overruled. 8. Voucher dated 25th March, 1975 taken on record and marked Ex. A. 9. Mr. Mody states that he closes his case on Issues Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and reserves his right to lead evidence in rebuttal on Issue No. 3. Order accordingly. -----