CMPMO No.8 of 2008. 1.5.2008 Present: Mr.Suneet Goel, counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Y.P.Sood, counsel for the respondent. This petition is directed against the order dated 1.12.2007 passed by learned District Judge, Shimla rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for recasting and re-framing of issues. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest from the defendant. The allegations with regard to the advance of the amount of Rs.6 lakhs and the issuance of the cheque are in para 2 of the plaint which read as follows: “2.That the defendant who is working as a contractor, on 31.10.2003 for lawful and valuable consideration, issued Cheque No.181021 for a sum of six lac (Rs.6,00,000/-). This cheque was drawn on Syndicate Bank, Shimla.” Written statement was filed by the defendant who took up the plea that the cheque had been issued without consideration. According to the defendant the cheque was issued as a security against the cash credit limit availed of by the defendant wherein the plaintiff had stood guarantee. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following amongst other issues: “1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount as prayed for? OPP” The plaintiff thereafter filed an application praying that since the defendant had not denied that the cheque had been issued, the issue should be recast and the onus should be on the defendant to show that the cheque was issued without lawful and valuable consideration. The argument made on behalf of the petitioner is that since the cheque has been issued a presumption has to be drawn under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the onus had to be on the defendant to show that the cheque was issued without valuable consideration. Normally such an argument would be acceptable. However, in the present case from the pleadings which have been quoted above it is apparent that the plaintiff has not stated how and for what reason the defendant owed Rs.6,00,000/- to him. The consideration for issuance of the cheque in such circumstances will have to be proved by the plaintiff. Therefore, I find that neither there is any need of recasting the issue nor onus can be placed on the defendant. The learned trial Court rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner. I find no error in the same. The petition is therefore rejected. No order as to costs. May 1, 2008. (Deepak Gupta), PV Judge