JUDGMENT

R. Chandra, J. - This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit for money.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit for the recovery of Rs. 1213121/-. It was alleged that on 13th August, 1953 an order was placed with the defendant for the supply of 150 bags (weighing 2 mds. and 30 seers each) , of D-27 sugar of Kath Kuiyan Sugar Mills Ltd., District Deoria, at the rate of Rs. 281-per mound. Under that transaction, the plaintiff paid Rs. 4501- as advance for the supply of the goods. On 9th June, 1954, the plaintiff again placed another order for the supply of 220 bags (weighing 2 mds. and 30 seers each) , of sugar of F-28 quality of Saraiyan Sugar Mills, Sardarnagar, at the rate o# Rs. 32121- per maund. Under that transaction also, Rs. 6601/- were paid as advance for the supply of the goods. The defendant failed to supply the sugar within a reasonable time. So, under the telegram dated 11th June, 1954, the plaintiff was compelled to cancel both the orders. On these grounds a decree was claimed for refund of the advance money, and damages suffered due to the defendant's conduct.

3. The defendant contested the suit on a variety of grounds. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Munsif framed the following issues :

"1. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit?

2. Whether time was essence of the contract?

3. Whether the plaintiffs arc entitled to any damages? If so its amount?

4. Whether defendants failed to supply sugar within reasonable time?

5. To what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled?

4. On the evidence produced in the case, the trial court found that time was the essence of the contract. It was further held that the defendant failed to supply the goods within a reasonable time, which could not exceed two to three weeks. The plaintiff's claim for R. 1031- as damages, could not be proved, and so it was disallowed. Other legal pleas were decided against the defendant. The suit for the refund of the advance money namely, Rs. 11101/- was decreed.

5. Being aggrieved with that order, the defendant went up in appeal. The learn-ed Additional Sessions Judge disagked with the finding of the Munsif, that two weeks was the reasonable time for performance of the contract. He fixed that period at two months. He found that since the first transaction was cancelled under the telegram dated 17-9-1953, the plaintiff was not entitled to get back Rs. 4501/-, which he had paid as advance. As regards the second transaction, it was held that the plaintiff cancelled it on 11th June, 1954, and he was perfectly justified to do so. In this view. it was found that he was only entitled to get a refund of Rs. 6601- paid as advance under that transaction: On these findings, the decree of the trial court was modified to this extent that the plaintiff's suit was decreed for Rs. 6601- only. The claim in-respect of the item of Rs. 4501- was disallowed.

6. The present appeal is directed against the order dis-allowing the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 4501-. Similarly, the defendant has also filed a cross-objection. It relates to the item of Rs. 6601-, which was decreed by both the courts below.

7. The primary question for consideration in the present appeal was, whether.the plaintiff was entitled to get back the money which he paid as advance to the defendant, under both the transactions.

8. The admitted facts are that on August, 1953 the plaintiff placed an order with the defendant for the supply of 150 bags (weighing 2 mds. and 36 seers each). of D-27 sugar of Kath Kuiyan Sugar Mills Ltd., District Deoria, at the rate of Rs. 281-per maund. Similarly, another order was placed on 9th June 1954 for the supply of 220 bags (weighing 2 mds. and 30 seers each) , of sugar of F-28 quality of Saraiyan Sugar Mills, Sardarnagar, at the rate of s. 321-2- per maund. No time was fixed for the delivery of the goods. It was agreed'., the sugar would be supplied soon. It appears that the defendant was required to arrange for the supply of the sugar t