Judgment : With the consent of both sides, this second appeal is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 2. The unsuccessful defendant in O.S.No.56 of 2009, before the Trial Court/Sub Court, Sankarankovil and before the First Appellate Court/Principal District Court, Tirunelveli, is the appellant herein. 3. The suit in O.S.No.56 of 2009 has been instituted by the plaintiff on the allegation that on 18.01.2007, the defendant borrowed Rs.3,00,000/-from him and promised to repay it within a month, in support of it he has issued Ex.A1 cheque, dated 18.01.2007, drawn on Central Bank of India, Sivagiri Branch, which was issued in the presence of P.Ws.2 and 3 Palanisamy and Kalidoss. However, when the cheque was presented to the bank, it was dishonoured and the plaintiff was informed by the bank under Exs.A2 and A3. Thereafter, in spite of demand, since the amount was not paid, the suit was instituted. 4. The suit has been resisted by the defendant by filing a written statement, containing several allegations. The material aspect of which is that the defendant had intended to purchase the property of plaintiff and Gurusamy on 13.01.2007, sale agreement was entered into between them and defendant paid them Rs.1,01,000/-as advance. Subsequently, it was substituted by Ex.B4, sale agreement, dated 28.03.2007, wherein the earlier sale agreement, dated 13.01.2007, has also been referred to and a further sum of Rs.3,00,000/-was paid by the defendant to the said person, the balance Rs.8,24,000/- is to be paid by the defendant by 14.07.2007. However, the sale collapsed. They have sold the property to some other person. However, they did not return the advance amount of Rs.4,01,000/-to the defendant. Thus, defendant complained to an higher police official in Tirunelveli and they have promised to return the amount by December 2008. However, they did not do so. On 18.01.2007, defendant did not receive any amount further. The cheque has been issued only in connection with the sale agreement, dated 13.01.2007 and 28.03.2007. Their Advocate's notice (Ex.B2), their petition (Ex.B3) to defendant's school management will also expose them. Actually, as per the sale agreement they have to pay the defendant Rs.1,50,000/-. 5. The Trial Court framed the following three issues:: i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount with interest? ii. Whether the defendant did not receive any consideration from the plaintiff? and iii. To what relief, the plaintiff is entitled to? 6. Actually, as per the sale agreement they have to pay the defendant Rs.1,50,000/-. 5. The Trial Court framed the following three issues:: i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount with interest? ii. Whether the defendant did not receive any consideration from the plaintiff? and iii. To what relief, the plaintiff is entitled to? 6. When the Trial Court tried the suit, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and Planisamy and Kalidoss as P.Ws.2 and 3 and exhibited Exs.A1 to A3, while, the defendant Durairaj examined himself as D.W.1, plaintiff's man Gurusamy as D.W.2, Advocate Yogaraj as D.W.3, a retired teacher as D.W.4, one Veluchamy as D.W.5 and exhibited Exs.B1 to B4. 7. Considering the arguments of both side and the evidence on record, the Trial Court referred to Section 20 of Negotiable Instruments Act and repelled the defendant's contention of issuance of blank cheque and considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 raised the presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act and also concluded that it has not been rebutted by the defendant and thus decreed the suit. 8. In such circumstances, the defendant directed the appeal in A.S.No.4 of 2012 before the First Appellate Court/Principal District Court, Tirunelveli, wherein he also filed an application in I.A.No.92 of 2013, under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure to produce the explanation given by him to the school authorities with reference to a petition preferred against him by the plaintiff and D.W.2 ad additional document (Ex.X1). 9. The First Appellate Court reappraised the evidence and ultimately it subscribed to the view of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 10. In the circumstances, the defendant directed this second appeal. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant contended that the plea of the defendant is if Ex.A1 cheque is connected with Ex.B4 sale agreement, then it become necessary to raise an issue as to whether Ex.A1 relates to a loan transaction or sale transaction, but an issue to that effect has not been raised by the Trial Court. The Trial Court in having not framed proper issues, misdirected itself and the defendant's plea did not receive it's due attention and that has resulted in a wrong finding. 12. The Trial Court in having not framed proper issues, misdirected itself and the defendant's plea did not receive it's due attention and that has resulted in a wrong finding. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that framing of issues in a civil case is very important, wrong framing of issues, non-framing of proper issues will lead to a wrong result. In the instant case, since a proper issue has not been framed, it had resulted in a wrong finding being rendered. 13. In support of his said contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant cited the following decisions: i. Raj Mohan v. Srinivasa Chettier, [ (2008) 6 MLJ 302 ]; ii. Balamani and another v. S.Balasundaram, [ 2009 (3) CTC 760 ]; iii. C.Vellaisamy v. C.Chinnakannu, [ (2000) 3 MLJ 767 ]; iv. Union Bank of India v. S.Liakat Ali, [(2012) (5) CTC 322]; and v. K.V. Shetty v. Woodbrier Estates Limited & others, [2008-2-L.W.327]. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant also contended that P.W.3 simply fumbled in the witness box when he spoke about the passing of consideration. The presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act clamored by the plaintiff has been ably cut by the appellant through Exs.B1 to B4 and Ex.X1. Actually, Ex.A1 relates to Ex.B4 sale transaction, but Ex.A1 has been used by the respondent to extract money from the appellant. 15. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contended that D.W.1 himself has admitted his signature in Ex.A1 cheque. P.W.3 spoken to about the passing of consideration. D.W.1 did not plead ignorance about P.Ws.2 and 3. Even in his cross-examination, D.W.1 admitted issuance of Ex.A1 cheque with reference to the debt payable by the respondent/plaintiff. 16. The learned counsel for the respondent further contended that from the admission of D.W.1, it is seen that in the petition given by him before DIG of Police, Tirunelveli, he did not mention about Ex.A1 cheque. Further, absence about issuance of Ex.A1 in Ex.B4 sale agreement would also expose the untenability of the appellant's plea. The learned counsel would submit that the presumption arose under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act has not been displaced/rebutted by the defendant. 17. Further, absence about issuance of Ex.A1 in Ex.B4 sale agreement would also expose the untenability of the appellant's plea. The learned counsel would submit that the presumption arose under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act has not been displaced/rebutted by the defendant. 17. The learned counsel for the respondent added that necessary issues required in a suit based on promissory note have been framed by the Trial Court and the respective parties' cases have been fully considered by the Courts below. There is no question of miscarriage of justice on account of non-framing of any proper and necessary issues arises in this case. 18. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the impugned Judgments and Decrees of the Courts below, records of the case and the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant. 19. The suit has been instituted based on receipt of money, evidenced by Ex.A1 cheque. The details of execution of Ex.A1 and payment of money with reference to Ex.A1 have been pleaded in the plaint. The defendant denied his liability towards Ex.A1 cheque and also set forth his case furnishing several details. 20. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant framing of issues is an important function to be discharged by a Civil Court in a civil case. 21. A Court need not frame issues on each and every line contained in the pleadings of the parties. Court can ignore unnecessary details in the pleadings of the parties. The Court must examine the pleadings of both and note down the material proposition of fact and law, in this respect scope and nature of the suit and the relief sought for assumes importance and based on that necessary and proper issues have to be framed. Deciding the onus of each party to the suit, namely, their duty to prove the case flows from the nature and tenor of the issues. If improper issues are framed or the issue is not couched in proper language, there will be wrong framing of issues and consequently there will be wrong fixing of onus. 22. In the instant case, the specific plea of the plaintiff is advancing of the loan amount, issuance of Ex.A1 cheque, non-payment of the same. Appellant came forward with his own version, sum and substance is his non-liability to pay the amount, the consideration for Ex.A1 has not at all passed. 23. 22. In the instant case, the specific plea of the plaintiff is advancing of the loan amount, issuance of Ex.A1 cheque, non-payment of the same. Appellant came forward with his own version, sum and substance is his non-liability to pay the amount, the consideration for Ex.A1 has not at all passed. 23. There are two issues, which are main issues, framed by the Trial Court. The first one is whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount. Under this, the plaintiff has to establish his case, namely, execution of Ex.A1, in other words, proof of creation of debt and thereupon the rebuttal of the same by the appellant and that should be considered under this issue. Further, there is a separate issue as to whether Ex.A1 is not supported by consideration, that will accommodate considering as to the plea of the defendant. The onus of proving the first one is on the plaintiff, while the second one is on the defendant. That apart on all aspects, factual and legal, the Courts below have elaborately considered and recorded their findings. In such circumstances, on account of non-framing of any issue, occasioning of failure of justice does not arises. 24. Negotiable Instruments Act is a legislation intended to vitalize commercial world. It is intended to promote and protect commercial practices, which includes lending of money by private as well public financial institutions. The Indian Evidence Act contains three types of legal fictions, namely, “conclusive proof”, “shall presume”. In these cases, there cannot be rebuttal. There is one more legal fiction, it is 'may presume'. It gives an opportunity to the opposite party, to rebut such presumption and it also gives discretion to the Court, but it must be based on evidence. Likewise, Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act also contains such Rules of Evidence. One of which is every Negotiable Instrument is executed, presumed to be executed for consideration. There are further presumptions as to name, date and time etc. Once the execution of the negotiable instrument has been established/proved by the plaintiff, there arises legal presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This is the basic/initial burden on the plaintiff. It will never change. Therefore, there arises a duty on the part of the defendant to dispel/refute/rebut such presumption by raising a probable defence. He would show that the passing of consideration is improbable, doubtful and illegal. This is the basic/initial burden on the plaintiff. It will never change. Therefore, there arises a duty on the part of the defendant to dispel/refute/rebut such presumption by raising a probable defence. He would show that the passing of consideration is improbable, doubtful and illegal. This is the initial burden on the defendant. It will never change. Once defendant discharges it, then the burden shifts to the plaintiff. Now, plaintiff has to reiterate passing of consideration or else he will fail. Defendant need not rebut the presumption under Section 118 Negotiable Instruments Act by letting any direct evidence or negative evidence, but mere denial in the written statement is not sufficient. He must bring on record facts and circumstances, which will make the Court believe, that the consideration did not pass. But, if he fails to do so, the plaintiff is entitled to the legal presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (see Bharat Barrel & Drum MFG. Go. v. Amin Chand Payrelal, ( 1999 (3) SCC 35 ), M.S.Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala ( 2006 (6) SCC 39 ) and Mallavarapu Kasivisweswara Rao v. Thadikonda Ramulu Firm, ( 2008 (7) SCC 655 ). 25. In the instant case, P.W.1 spoken about his advancing of loan of Rs.3,00,000/- on 18.01.2007 to D.W.1 and it was in the presence of two known persons, namely, P.Ws.2 and 3. P.Ws.1 to 3 have also spoken about issuance of Ex.A1 cheque on the said date by D.W.1 in favour of P.W.1. P.W.3 elaborated the passing of consideration. In his ross-examination, D.W.1 would not deny his knowledge of P.Ws.2 and 3. He also admits that there is no animosity behind him and P.Ws.2 and 3. In his cross-examination, D.W.1 admits his issuance of Ex.A1 cheque. He has also admits that the name endorsed in Ex.A1 is Lakshmi Rajan/plaintiff. Thus, execution of Ex.A3 has been satisfactorily established by the plaintiff. In such circumstances, necessarily the legal presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act the Ex.A1 has been executed for consideration arises. 26. Admittedly, Ex.A1 cheque has been bounced under Exs.A2 and A3 because of insufficiency of funds in his bank account. 27. The plea of defendant is that Ex.A1 has been issued in connection with sale agreement, dated 13.01.2007, which was substituted by Ex.B4 sale agreement, dated 28.03.2007, no money for Ex.A1 has been paid to him. 28. 26. Admittedly, Ex.A1 cheque has been bounced under Exs.A2 and A3 because of insufficiency of funds in his bank account. 27. The plea of defendant is that Ex.A1 has been issued in connection with sale agreement, dated 13.01.2007, which was substituted by Ex.B4 sale agreement, dated 28.03.2007, no money for Ex.A1 has been paid to him. 28. Execution of Ex.B4 sale agreement has been admitted by the plaintiff. It indicates that there was sale transaction by both sides with reference to immovable property as between D.W.1 on the one hand and P.W.1 and D.W.2 Gurusamy on the one hand. Ex.B4 sale agreement also has been stated to have been substituted by an earlier sale agreement, dated 13.01.2007. If Ex.A1 cheque has been issued in connection with the sale transaction one would normally expect a reference about Ex.A1 cheque, because Ex.A1 in the hands of the plaintiff would be headache for the defendant. However, explicitly there is complete absence about Ex.A1 in Ex.B4. D.W.1 also admits no mentioning in Ex.A1 in the earlier sale agreement, dated 13.01.2007. 29. In this connection, defendant says that he preferred a complaint to DIG of Police, Tirunelveli, against the plaintiff. But, in his cross-examination D.W.1 admits that he had not whispered anything about issuance of Ex.A1 cheque in the said complaint. 30. The defendant has referred to Ex.B2 Advocate Notice, dated 02.03.2007, stated to have been issued by the plaintiff through Advocate D.W.3 Yogaraj of Sivagiri Bar. Ex.B2 has contrary information as to Ex.A1. But, P.W.1 denied his issuance of Ex.B2 through D.W.3 and according to him it is a concoction of D.W.1. But, issuing of Ex.B2 has been not established by producing the postal cover or other proof. 31. Ex.B3 dated 19.07.2007, stated to have been issued by P.W.1 and D.W.2 Gurusamy to the authorities of school in which D.W.1 has been employed as a teacher, has contrary information about sale transaction between both sides and Ex.X1 is an explanation given by D.W.1 to the show cause notice issued to him by the school authorities. Admittedly, the appellant has been a teacher in the said school. The signature in Ex.B3 has been disputed by P.W.1, D.W.2 and it has been stage managed one. Ex.B3 has not been proved by relevant acceptable evidence. 32. Thus, the steps taken by the defendant did not improbablise, doubts in passing of consideration for Ex.A1. Admittedly, the appellant has been a teacher in the said school. The signature in Ex.B3 has been disputed by P.W.1, D.W.2 and it has been stage managed one. Ex.B3 has not been proved by relevant acceptable evidence. 32. Thus, the steps taken by the defendant did not improbablise, doubts in passing of consideration for Ex.A1. In such circumstances, necessarily, the legal presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act arose in favour of the plaintiff has not been displaced by the appellant. Thus, both the Courts below have considered the irrespective cases, accepted the case of the respondent and rejected the case of the appellant and decreed the suit. In this perspective of the matter, no substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. 33. This second appeal is devoid of any merits and it is dismissed. The Decree and Judgments of the Courts below are confirmed. In the circumstances, parties are left to bear their respective costs in the second appeal. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.