( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of Civil Suit No. 27-B of 1958 instituted in the Court of iiird Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, by the appellant firm against the respondent firm for the recovery of Rs. 11168-12-0 as damages for breach of contract. There is also another appeal (First Appeal No. 209 of 1959) which arises out of Civil Suit No. 26-B of 1958 instituted by the same plaintiff-appellant firm against a different defendant partnership firm Nandlal Radhakishan for the recovery of Rs. 10182-11-0 as damages for similar breach of contract. Both the suits were dismissed by the trial Court.

( 2 ) THE questions for consideration in both the appeals are identical, though the suits were based on different contracts. The evidence for both the cases was recorded in Civil Suit No. 26-B of 1958. This judgment shall therefore govern the disposal of both the appeals.

( 3 ) IN the body of this judgment we are referring to the facts of Civil Suit No. 27-B of 1958. Reference to documents will have to be construed to the corresponding documents in the other case (Civil Suit No. 26-B of 1958 ). Express reference to them for the disposal of the other appeal is not necessary.

( 4 ) MOST of the facts are no longer in dispute. Briefly stated, they are as follows: on 2-12-1957 and 16-12-1957, the defendant firms entered into contracts with the plaintiff firm for the purchase of 220 bags (550 maunds) of rice and 480 bags (1200 maunds) of rice at specified rate. The contracts were reduced to writing. The transactions were 'bilticut' under which the goods were to be sent by rail from Bilaspur to three different places in the Bihar State. The plaintiff firm indented for the requisite number of wagons for despatching the goods a day after making the above contracts, that is to say, on 3-12-1957 and 17-121957. However, before the wagons could be allotted to the plaintiff firm, the Central Government, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act (No. X of 1955), passed an order on 20-12-1957 banning the export of rice from the State of madhya Pradesh to any other State in the Union of India for an indefinite period. After the imposition of this ban, all the Station Masters in madhya Pradesh were instructed by the South East Railway to stop booking of rice to any station outside Madhya Pradesh. The plaintiff therefore admittedly did not book the goods by rail and did not send the railway receipt to the defendant firm. However, the plaintiff firm sent a letter Ex. P. 6 on 16-1-1958 to the defendant firm asking the latter to take delivery. Along with this letter a bill for Rs. 37167-15-6 (Ex. D. 23)was also sent. The defendant firm in its reply Ex. P. 7 dated 25-1-1958 refused to take delivery and claimed damages from the plaintiff firm, charging it with breach of contract. Thereupon, the plaintiff firm sent another letter Ex. P. 8 on 3-2-1958, reiterating the facts above stated and emphasizing that the defendant firm was bound to take delivery of the goods in the plaintiff's rice mill at Bilaspur according to the printed conditions No. 2 and 3 in the written contract, and asked for compliance within 15 days failing which the goods would be sold in the market and the defendant would be liable for the loss incurred to the plaintiff. The defendant firm did not take delivery even after this letter. Ultimately, the plaintiff firm sold the rice and sent notice dated 10-3-1958 (Ex. P. 9)claiming the loss sustained by it on such sale. Account of sale (Ex. P. 10)was sent along with this letter, showing Rs. 11064-3-6 as the total amount of loss sustained by the plaintiff firm. The defendant firm repudiated its liability by its letter dated 18-3-1958 (Ex. P. 11), claiming rs. 3500/-as damages from the plaintiff for the breach of contract. Ultimately the plaintiff firm filed the present suit on 5-5-1958. ( 5 ) THE main question for consideration in the case whether in the contracts made between the parties, the