A suit for recovery of money looks deceptively simple — the plaintiff says "you owe me a sum; pay it back" — yet it generates some of the most error-prone issue-framing in the trial court. The reason is that money claims travel under many legal vehicles: a friendly loan, a promissory note, a dishonoured cheque, an account stated, goods sold and delivered, or a quantum meruit restitutionary claim. Each vehicle carries its own material propositions, its own statutory presumptions, and its own allocation of burden. Frame the issues for a promissory-note suit as if it were an open loan, and you silently shift the burden of consideration to the wrong party. This chapter applies the machinery of Order XIV CPC to the recovery-of-money suit, showing how the pleadings, the governing statute and the rules of evidence combine to produce the precise issues the court must record.
The anatomy of a recovery-of-money suit
Every money suit shares a common skeleton. The plaintiff must plead and ultimately prove (i) the source of the obligation — a loan advanced, a contract performed, an instrument executed, or a benefit conferred; (ii) the quantum due, including any agreed or statutory interest; (iii) that the claim is within limitation; and (iv) that the sum remains unpaid. The defendant's written statement then either denies the obligation outright, admits it but pleads discharge (payment, set-off, accord and satisfaction), or attacks the claim as barred by limitation. The issues are simply the points on which these competing assertions collide.
Order XIV Rule 1(1) CPC defines an issue as arising "when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by the one party and denied by the other", and Rule 1(2) defines material propositions as "those propositions of law or fact which a plaintiff must allege in order to show a right to sue or a defendant must allege in order to constitute his defence." In a money suit the controlling exercise is therefore to translate the cause of action — the legal recipe for that particular kind of debt — into its constituent material propositions, and then to test each against the written statement. Only those that are denied become issues; those admitted are removed from contest under the law of admissions.
Why the cause of action decides the issues
The single most important discipline in framing money-suit issues is to identify which legal vehicle the plaintiff has chosen, because the vehicle dictates both the material propositions and the burden. A suit "for money lent" requires the plaintiff to prove the advance and its terms. A suit "on a promissory note" engages the presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which relieves the holder of proving consideration unless the maker rebuts it. A suit "on an account stated" requires proof of an admitted balance rather than each underlying transaction. A restitutionary claim under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 requires proof that the benefit was conferred lawfully and non-gratuitously.
Because the propositions differ, the issues differ. The court cannot frame a generic issue such as "Is the defendant liable to pay?" — that is a conclusion, not an issue. Each material proposition must be reduced to a discrete, answerable issue. The duty to ascertain those propositions from the plaint and written statement and to record issues on which "the right decision of the case appears to depend" was emphasised by the Supreme Court in Makhan Lal Bangal v. Manas Bhunia, (2001) 2 SCC 652, which described issue-framing as an obligation cast on the court, not a formality.
Issues in a simple suit for money lent
The paradigm case is an oral or simple-receipt loan. Here the plaintiff carries the full burden. Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 104 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) places the burden on the party who "desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts." The lender asserts the advance, so the lender must prove it. The Supreme Court restated this in Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 558, holding that the burden of proof rests on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue, not on the party who denies it.
The typical issues are: (1) Whether the plaintiff advanced a loan of Rs. X to the defendant on the pleaded date? (2) Whether any sum has been repaid, and if so how much? (3) Whether the suit is within limitation? (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, and at what rate? (5) Relief. Note that the onus on the repayment issue lies on the defendant, because discharge is a fact especially within the defendant's knowledge and is asserted by the defendant. Mixing these onuses into a single composite issue is the commonest framing error, because it obscures who must lead evidence first.
The promissory-note suit and the consideration presumption
Where the debt is embodied in a promissory note, the framing changes materially. Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act raises a presumption that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration. This presumption reverses the ordinary burden on the issue of consideration: once execution of the note is admitted or proved, the holder need not prove that consideration passed; instead the maker must rebut the presumption.
The leading authority on the contours of this rebuttal is Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Co. v. Amin Chand Payrelal, (1999) 3 SCC 35, where the Supreme Court held that the presumption under Section 118 is rebuttable, that the defendant may displace it by establishing a preponderance of probabilities against the existence of consideration, and that the defendant "need not lead evidence on all conceivable modes of consideration". Accordingly the issue is not "Did consideration pass?" framed against the plaintiff, but rather "Whether the defendant proves that the suit promissory note was executed without consideration?" — an issue whose onus rests squarely on the defendant. Recording the onus correctly in the issue itself is good practice and prevents the trial from proceeding on a false premise.
Civil recovery on a dishonoured cheque
A dishonoured cheque can found a civil money suit as well as a complaint under Section 138. On the civil side the same presumptive machinery applies. Section 118(a) presumes consideration, and Section 139 presumes that the holder received the cheque for the discharge, in whole or in part, of a debt or other liability. In Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441, the Supreme Court held that the Section 139 presumption includes the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, and that once issuance of the cheque is admitted the presumption operates to shift the initial burden onto the drawer, who may rebut it on a preponderance of probabilities.
For framing purposes this means the issues centre on the defendant's rebuttal rather than the plaintiff's proof of debt: "Whether the defendant proves that the suit cheque was not issued towards discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability?" remains the operative issue once execution is admitted. Where the defendant denies the signature itself, a prior issue of execution arises and the presumption does not engage until execution is established. The court must keep these two layers — execution and consideration — as separate issues, because they carry different onuses and engage at different stages of the trial.
Account stated versus open running account
Commercial money suits frequently rest on an account between the parties. The framing turns on whether the plaintiff sues on an "account stated" — a settled and admitted balance — or on an "open and running account" requiring proof of each debit and credit. In an account-stated suit the material proposition is the admission of the balance; the issue becomes "Whether the parties stated and settled the account at Rs. X as pleaded?" The plaintiff need not then prove each underlying transaction, because the stated balance operates as an acknowledgment supporting the claim.
In an open-account suit the issues are necessarily more granular: whether the goods or services were supplied, whether the prices were as pleaded, what payments were received, and what balance results. Limitation is computed under Article 1 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 for an open, current and mutual account, which keeps the period rolling from the close of the year in which the last item is entered. Framing a single issue of "balance due" in an open-account suit collapses several distinct propositions and should be resisted; the issues should track the disputed entries so that the burden on each can be allocated.
Quantum meruit and restitution under Section 70
Where there is no completed contract — for instance, work done outside the agreed scope, or under a contract that has fallen through — the plaintiff may sue for a reasonable sum on a quantum meruit basis under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act. The provision obliges a person who enjoys the benefit of a non-gratuitous act to compensate the person who lawfully did it. Three propositions must be pleaded and proved: that the thing was done lawfully, that it was not intended to be done gratuitously, and that the defendant enjoyed the benefit.
The burden of proving the non-gratuitous intention lies on the claimant, and the claim is available only where the subject-matter falls outside any subsisting contract between the parties — a claim under a live contract must be sued upon as a contract, not as restitution. The issues therefore read: (1) Whether the plaintiff performed the pleaded work/supplied the pleaded benefit lawfully and not gratuitously? (2) Whether the defendant enjoyed the benefit thereof? (3) What is the reasonable value of the benefit? (4) Whether the claim is barred by an existing contract covering the same subject-matter? Keeping the "reasonable value" proposition as a distinct issue is important because it is a question of valuation, often requiring separate evidence, and is conceptually different from the question of liability.
Goods sold and delivered and the price claim
A large share of commercial money suits is for the price of goods sold and delivered or services rendered. The cause of action under Section 55 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 arises where property in the goods has passed to the buyer and the buyer wrongfully neglects or refuses to pay the price. The material propositions the seller must establish are the contract of sale, delivery (or readiness to deliver where the price was payable on a day certain irrespective of delivery), the agreed or reasonable price, and non-payment. Each of these is a candidate issue, and the framing should follow the pleadings closely because buyers commonly admit the supply but dispute quality, quantity or rate.
Where the buyer pleads that the goods were defective or short-supplied, that defence introduces fresh propositions on which the buyer carries the onus, and a separate issue — "Whether the defendant proves that the goods supplied were defective or short of the contracted quantity?" — should be framed. Mixing the seller's proof of delivery with the buyer's plea of defect into one issue obscures the two distinct onuses. The valuation of any deduction for defective goods is, like the quantum meruit valuation discussed above, a discrete question best kept in its own issue so that the trial court applies the correct burden and the appellate court can review it in isolation.
Limitation, acknowledgment and the time-barred debt
Limitation is almost always a live issue in money suits and must be framed expressly whenever the defendant pleads it or the dates on the face of the plaint raise it. Two distinct devices can save an otherwise stale claim, and they must not be confused. An acknowledgment of liability in writing signed before the expiry of limitation, under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, furnishes a fresh starting point for the period. By contrast, a written and signed promise to pay a debt already barred, under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, creates a fresh enforceable obligation even after limitation has run.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed this distinction: an acknowledgment under Section 18 must be made within the limitation period and need not contain any promise to pay, whereas a Section 25(3) promise operates only after the debt is time-barred and must be an express promise to pay. The framing consequence is precise. If the plaintiff relies on an acknowledgment, the issue is "Whether the document dated ___ constitutes a valid acknowledgment within limitation under Section 18?"; if the plaintiff relies on a fresh promise, the issue is "Whether the defendant made an express written promise under Section 25(3) to pay the time-barred debt?" The onus of bringing the suit within time, once limitation is in issue, lies on the plaintiff.
Interest: pre-suit, pendente lite and post-decree
Interest is a recurring source of under-framing. It must be treated as a distinct issue because Section 34 CPC distinguishes three stages: interest accrued before the suit (governed by contract, usage or statute), interest pendente lite from the date of suit to the date of decree, and post-decree interest until realisation. Pre-suit interest is part of the cause of action and must be proved like any other claimed sum; the latter two are discretionary and are awarded by the court, not proved by the party.
The Supreme Court has held that the discretion to award interest under Section 34, whether pendente lite or post-decree, must be exercised on equitable considerations and cannot be applied mechanically or at an unreasonably high rate without rationale. For framing, this means a separate issue such as "Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, and if so at what rate and for what period?" is appropriate, with the pre-suit component tied to the pleaded contractual rate. Conflating interest into the relief issue alone risks the trial court overlooking the evidentiary burden on pre-suit interest, which — unlike the discretionary stages — the plaintiff must establish.
Set-off, counter-claim and their separate issues
When the defendant pleads a set-off under Order VIII Rule 6 CPC or raises a counter-claim, fresh material propositions enter the suit and require their own issues. A set-off is in substance a cross-claim for an ascertained sum arising in the same transaction or a connected one; the defendant becomes a plaintiff in respect of it and bears the burden of proving it. The issues must therefore separate the plaintiff's claim from the defendant's set-off: "Whether the defendant proves the pleaded set-off of Rs. Y?" sits alongside, and does not merge into, the issues on the principal claim.
A counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 6A is treated as a cross-suit and generates a full set of issues mirroring those of a plaint — cause of action, quantum, limitation, and relief — on which the defendant carries the onus. Because the consequences for burden are significant, the court should frame the set-off and counter-claim issues with the onus expressly indicated. This is an application of the general principle, discussed under material propositions and admissions, that every contested proposition gets its own issue and that admitted facts are excluded from the issues altogether.
Burden of proof versus shifting onus in money suits
Nowhere does the distinction between the fixed legal burden and the shifting onus matter more than in money suits. The burden of proof under Section 101 of the Evidence Act never shifts: it stays on the party whose claim or defence would fail if no evidence were led. The onus, however, shifts as evidence accumulates. In Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh the Supreme Court explained that once a plaintiff creates a high degree of probability, the onus moves to the defendant, and in the absence of rebuttal the plaintiff's burden is held discharged.
Statutory presumptions short-circuit this process. Under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act the presumption itself places the initial onus on the defendant, as Bharat Barrel and Rangappa confirm. The framing lesson is that an issue should reflect where the onus lies at the start of trial, because that determines who leads evidence first under Order XVIII Rule 1 CPC. An issue that reads "Whether the defendant proves..." signals a reversed onus; one that reads "Whether the plaintiff proves..." signals the ordinary rule. Getting this wrong does not merely mislabel the issue — it can decide the suit, because the party wrongly told to begin may suffer a non-suit it never should have faced.
Recovery against a surety or guarantor
Where the money is sought not from the principal debtor alone but from a surety, the contract of guarantee under Sections 126 to 147 of the Indian Contract Act introduces its own propositions. The plaintiff must establish the principal debt, the contract of guarantee, and default by the principal debtor, after which the surety's liability is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor under Section 128 unless the contract otherwise provides. Common defences — that the guarantee was discharged by a variation of the principal contract under Section 133, by release of the principal debtor under Section 134, or by the creditor's conduct impairing the surety's eventual remedy under Section 139 — each add a distinct material proposition on which the surety carries the onus.
The issues therefore split along the same fault line seen throughout this chapter: the plaintiff's propositions (principal debt, guarantee, default) form one cluster, and the surety's discharge pleas form another, each requiring its own issue with the onus indicated. A composite issue such as "Whether the defendant surety is liable?" is inadequate, because it suppresses both the plaintiff's burden to prove the principal default and the surety's burden to prove discharge. Framing them separately keeps the trial coherent and tracks the structure that the law on issues of fact and law requires.
Consequences of defective or omitted issues
What happens when the trial court frames the issues badly or omits one altogether? The answer is governed by the prejudice test. In Makhan Lal Bangal v. Manas Bhunia the Supreme Court held that an omission to frame proper issues may justify remand for retrial only where prejudice is shown to have resulted; where the parties went to trial with full knowledge of the rival cases and led evidence on the real controversy, a defect in framing does not by itself vitiate the trial. Order XIV Rule 5 CPC additionally empowers the court to amend or strike out issues at any time before passing the decree, so that an omission can often be cured rather than fatal.
For the money suit this is reassuring but not a licence for sloppiness. A misallocated onus — for instance, framing the consideration issue against the holder of a promissory note — can cause real prejudice precisely because it shifts the obligation to begin and the risk of non-persuasion to the wrong side. The safer course, consistent with the discipline of the whole Order XIV scheme, is to derive each issue mechanically from the material propositions, indicate the onus on each, and keep distinct propositions in distinct issues so that the appellate court, if it must, can isolate and correct a single error without unravelling the entire trial.
Frequently asked questions
Who bears the burden of proving consideration in a suit on a promissory note?
Not the holder. Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act presumes consideration, so once execution is admitted or proved the onus shifts to the maker to prove the note was without consideration. In Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Co. v. Amin Chand Payrelal, (1999) 3 SCC 35, the Supreme Court held this presumption is rebuttable on a preponderance of probabilities and the defendant need not negate every conceivable mode of consideration.
How should the issue on a dishonoured-cheque civil claim be framed?
Once issuance of the cheque is admitted, Section 139 presumes it was given for a legally enforceable debt, as held in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441. The operative issue is therefore whether the defendant proves the cheque was not issued towards any legally enforceable debt or liability. If the signature itself is denied, a prior issue of execution must be framed, because the presumption engages only after execution is established.
What is the difference between an acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act and a promise under Section 25(3) of the Contract Act?
An acknowledgment under Section 18 must be a signed writing made before limitation expires and merely furnishes a fresh starting point; it need not contain any promise to pay. A Section 25(3) promise operates after the debt is already time-barred and must be an express signed written promise to pay, creating a fresh enforceable obligation. The framing of the limitation issue depends on which device the plaintiff relies upon.
Must interest be framed as a separate issue in a money suit?
Yes, because Section 34 CPC distinguishes pre-suit interest (part of the cause of action, which the plaintiff must prove), pendente lite interest, and post-decree interest (both discretionary). The Supreme Court has held the discretion must be exercised on equitable considerations and not mechanically or at an unreasonable rate. A distinct interest issue ensures the evidentiary burden on the pre-suit component is not overlooked.
Does a wrongly framed onus in a money suit vitiate the trial?
Not automatically. Under Makhan Lal Bangal v. Manas Bhunia, (2001) 2 SCC 652, a defective or omitted issue vitiates the trial only if prejudice is shown; where parties contested the real controversy with full knowledge, the defect is cured. But a misallocated onus can itself cause prejudice by forcing the wrong party to begin, so courts should indicate the onus on each issue. Order XIV Rule 5 CPC also allows issues to be amended before decree.
How are issues framed when the defendant pleads a set-off or counter-claim?
Both generate fresh material propositions on which the defendant carries the burden, so they require their own issues distinct from the plaintiff's claim. A set-off under Order VIII Rule 6 is a cross-claim for an ascertained sum; a counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 6A is treated as a cross-suit with a full set of mirroring issues. The court should frame these with the onus expressly indicated on the defendant.