paid to the plaintiff by the Courts below and according to her, the same has been determined, without properly relying upon Exs.B3 and B8 to B10. As found by the Courts below, according to the defendant, she has paid the payment of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under Ex.B3 and the same is found to be the receipt dated 28.01.2003. The same is found to be bearing receipt no.127 received by the plaintiff. According to the defendant, the abovesaid payment has not been given due credit to by the plaintiff. However, according to the plaintiff, the abovesaid payment was made only on 28.01.2004 and not on 28.01.2003 and the year had been mistakenly noted as 2003 instead of 2004 in the abovesaid document and the same according to the plaintiff could be evidenced from Exs.A8 and A9. As found by the Courts below, particularly, the first appellate Court, Ex.A8 is the relevant receipt book and Ex.A9 is the carbon copy of Ex.B3. In the said receipt book and on a perusal of the same, considering the serial number of the receipts contained in the abovesaid book, when it is found that the receipt number 126 is dated 08.01.2004 and the earlier receipt 125 is also found to be dated 03.01.2004 and the subsequent receipt to Ex.A9 bearing no.128 is dated 14.02.2004, accordingly it is found that the receipt marked as Ex.B3 has been wrongly dated as 2003 instead of 2004 and furthermore, considering the payment of the abovesaid sum by way of cheque bearing No.5917 drawn on Punjab National Bank and the other evidence adduced in the matter, it is found that the plaintiff had given due credit to the abovesaid payment and therefore, the Courts below had rightly rejected the case of the defendant that the said payment had not been taken into consideration by the plaintiff.
