credited to the account vide cheque No.155101 on 02.12.2011 and another sum of Rs.2,00,000/- had been credited to the account vide cheque No.155109. Thus, it is pellucid that the said two cheques referred by the appellant had been duly credited to the account of the said M/s. D.P.Textiles. As mentioned above, the contention of the appellant is that there is no due to the said M/s.D.P.Textiles while the said two cheques were credited and as such the said payment were only in respect of the amount payable to the respondent. As such, there seems to be some force in the contention of the appellant at this stage. But, at the same time, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the said payments were made for the earlier borrowal with the said M/s. D.P.Textiles and not for the amounts due to the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that on 30.12.2010 a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- had been credited to the appellant vide cheque No.003411 from the account of the said M/s. D.P.Textiles and that the same had been later repaid as mentioned by the appellant. In fact, the P.W.-2 had deposed to the effect that a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- had been credited to the account of Mr.Udaya Kumar on 30.12.2010, vide Cheque No.003411. On perusal of the Ex.P-9 statement of accounts also it reveals the said payment. Though the P.W.-2 had been cross examined by the appellant, nothing had been elicited in his favour. It is also pertinent to note that it had not been denied either generally or specifically that the said payment of
