( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal raises a short question of law regarding the right of a buyer to reject goods taken delivery of by him from the seller and supplied by him to his sub-purchases before he has had a reasonable opportunity of examining the goods for the purpose of ascertaining whether they are in conformity with the contract. the facts which are admitted or found to have been proved by the first appellate Court may be briefly stated as follows. On or about 24/03/1952 a contract was entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendant whereby the plaintiffs agreed to sell to the defendant one wagon load of pure dundi coal at the rate of Rs. 2-1-3 per deshi maund. The plaintiffs despatched to the defendant under the contract 397 bags containing 345 Bengali maunds of coal on 1/05/1952. The plaintiffs thereafter delivered the railway receipt in respect of the consignment to the defendant on 3/05/1952 against payment of a cheque for Rs. 1 0 and Rs. 100/in cash. The consignment was received by the defendant at Baroda on 6/05/1952. It appears that on the strength of the contract with the plaintiffs the defendant had entered into contracts with various sub-purchasers for sale of pure dundi coal. The defendant therefore immediately on receipt of the consignment delivered some of the goods out of the consignment to the sub-purchasers on the same day and removed the rest of the goods to his warehouse. The defendant admittedly did not examine the goods before delivering the same to the sub-purchasers and the reason was that delivery of the goods was considerably delayed by the plaintiffs and as a result thereof the defendant had not been able to deliver the goods to the sub-purchasers in time and the sub-purchasers were therefore clamouring for the goods. Whatever be the reason it is an admitted fact that the defendant did not examine the goods for the purpose of ascertaining whether they were in conformity with the contract and delivered the same to the sub-purchasers before examination. On the next day i. e. 7/05/1952 the defendant received complaints from the sub-purchasers that the goods which had been delivered to them by the defendant were not pure dundi coal. The defendant thereupon immediately sent a telegram to the plaintiffs and also addressed a letter to the Plaintiffs complaining that the goods supplied by the plaintiffs to the defendant under the contract were not pure dundi coal as provided by the contract. The defendant rejected the goods and stopped payment of the cheque for Rs. 1 0 which had been given by the defendant to the plaintiffs against delivery of the railway receipt in respect of the goods. The plaintiffs thereupon filed the present suit against the defendant claiming to recover from the defendant the sum of Rs. 2 299 being the balance of the price in respect of the goods. The defendant by his written statement contended that since the goods were not of the contract description he was entitled to reject the goods and the goods having been rejected by him on 7/05/1952 he was not liable to pay the price of the goods to the plaintiffs. The defendant also claimed damages from the plaintiffs for breach of the contract committed by the plaintiffs by their failure to deliver goods of the contract description to the defendant. The learned trial Judge dismissed the plaintiffs suit and passed a decree in favour of the defendant awarding Rs. 1 485 as and by way of damages. he plaintiffs filed an appeal against this decree of the learned trial Judge and the defendant also filed cross-objections. The learned District Judge who heard the appeal and the cross-objections held that though the goods delivered by the plaintiffs to the defendant were not pure dundi coal as stipulated under the contract and the defendant was therefore entitled to reject the goods the defendant had lost his right of rejection by selling and delivering a part of the goods to his sub-purchasers. The learned District Judge held t