' ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J.---Facts giving rise to the filing of Civil Revision 1953 of 2006 are that respondent instituted a suit for recovery of Rs,1,46,000 against the petitioner on the basis of a promissory note alleged to have been executed by the petitioner. Latter filed petition for leave to defend the suit, which the respondent contested and resisted by filing reply thereto. On 10-2-2006 petitioner was allowed to file written statement in the suit. Upon' divergent pleadings of the parties, two issues were framed and plaintiff/respondent was directed to adduce his evidence to substantiate his claim. And instead, the respondent filed an application under Order XIV Rule 5 C.P.C. For rectification of the issues, which was replied to by the petitioner, and vide order, dated 18- 7-2006 the learned trial Court by accepting the application of the respondent, proceeded to frame a separate issues No,2.
2. Learned counsel says that by exercising its jurisdiction, the learned trial Court committed material illegality and wrongly placed onus upon the petitioner to prove the newly framed issue No,2. Adds that it is a settled principle of law it is the plaintiff who has to discharge the onus and to establish his claim through evidence. That order impugned is void ab initio causing miscarriage of justice and irreparable loss to the petitioner. Lastly, it was contended that learned Judge failed to apply its independent mind to ascertain that questioned promissory note was executed under undue influence with free-will and consideration.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. The petitioner admitted his signatures/thumb impression on the promissory note, and stated that said promissory note was got executed under undue influence of the police and that it was without consideration. The trial Court rightly observed that onus to prove the same and the receipt, dated 9-9-1999 was upon the petitioner/defendant, and rightly framed the issue in that regard. I am fortified in this view by the law laid down in the case reported as 1992 M LD 1007 State Associates v. Messrs Farben Industrial Development SPA and another holding "that presumption for every negotiable instrument and endorsement thereon would be deemed to be genuine, and the person alleging non-genuineness of such endorsement was under obligation to prove the same and that provision of section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, would be applicable in case of negotiable instruments. "
5. The case law referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner having no nexus and relevance with the facts and circumstances of the present case being distinguishable, would not be applicable thereon. The learned Judge of the trial Court in view of the pleadings of the parties rightly shifted the onus of proving the pro note and receipts upon the petitioner because of the fact that petitioner himself admitted the signatures and thumb impression by stating that the same was without consideration. No illegality, irregularity, ambiguity or jurisdictional defect appears to have committed by the Court below so as to warrant interference by this Court in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court, with the result that this petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed accordingly.