(1) THE appellants, a partnership firm dealing in jari goods at Surat,instituted a suit for recovery of a paiticular amount due at the foot of the account in connection with the dealings which they had with the defendant-respondent, a merchant from Bangalore. Insofar as the present appeal is concerned, we are concerned only with one item in dispute,namely, a sum of Rs. 17,000.00 alleged to have been paid by the respondent-defendant to the appellants-plaintiffs in cash on 20/01/1962. The books of accounts of the appellants show that a sum of Rs. 17,000.00 was in fact credited to the account of the respondent on 20/01/1962. It appears that the appellants had also given credit to the respondent for a sum of Rs. 17,000.00 in connection with the difference in the rates charged for the goods supplied between 27/02/1961 and 9/11/1961, on 15/01/1962. There is also a cross entry in the accounts of the appellants for 15/01/1962 which goes to show that the sum of Rs. 17,000.00 was not credited in connection with any cash payment but a credit was given to this extent in the context of the excess charges recovered in regard to the value of the goods supplied. The appellants have also issued two sets of receipts acknowledging the payment of Rs. 17,000.00 under each receipt. For the cash payment there is a receipt (Ex. 195) dated January 15, 1962. In regard to the credit given for the difference in the price charged there is a separate receipt dated 20/01/1962 which is marked Ex. 196. The High court was, therefore, perfectly justified in accepting the version of the respondent-defendant and in repelling the contention of the appellants-plaintiffs. There is no substance in the appeal. It fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs because learned counsel for the respondent has not remained present at the hearing and the appeal has been allowed in his absence and without his assistance.