JUDGMENT Bennet, J. - This is a revision by a Plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by the Small Cause Court of Saharanpur. The Plaintiff and Defendant entered into three contracts for the supply of flour by the Plaintiff in Saharanpur to the Defendant in Burdwan (Bengal). These contracts were: (1) for 155 bags at Rs. 2-15-6 per maund on 24-9-35; (2) for 310 bags at Rs. 3-1-0 per maund on 1-10-35 (3) for 155 bags at Rs. 3-9-6 on 25-10-35. 2. The Plaintiff said that he found it difficult to supply goods as there was a temporary defect in the mills and on the 24th November, 1935, the Defendant sent notice to the Plaintiff asking that all the bags be sent. That notice has not been produced by the Plaintiff but he has admitted in evidence that it was to that effect. Instead of complying with the notice on the 3th December, 1935, the Plaintiff sent 155 bags on the last contract and the Defendant refused to accept delivery. The Defendant sued the Plaintiff in Burdwan for breach of contract in regard to all three contracts and his suit was decreed on the first and second contracts. There was some mention of the third contract orally but no counter claim in the written statement. The Court below has refused to grant the Plaintiff damages for breach of contract in non-acceptance by the Defendant of the goods sent on his contract. In revision it is claimed that the Plaintiff was entitled to treat each contract as separate and to tender goods only on the third contract and therefore the Plaintiff is entitled to damages on the third contract. It appears to me that the intention of the parties in making each of these contracts must be looked to. No doubt each of the contracts is on a printed form which refers only to that contract making an offer and acceptance is written on the form without a date for the purpose being specified, but in making the third contract for 155 bags as the two previous contracts had not been fulfilled, it appears to me that the intention of the parties was that 155 bags should be supplied by the Plaintiff in addition to the supply of bags on the previous contracts; that is, that the parties intended that 155 bags more should be sent. This contract cannot in my opinion be treated separately from the other contracts because it was not the intention of the parties in making this third contract that only 155 bags should be sent but that 155 plus 310 plus 155 bags should be sent. Otherwise the Defendant would have closed with the first two contracts and would not have entered into an additional contract. The Defendant of course expected that the first two contracts would be fulfilled and after that a further consignment would be sent. This appears to me to be a natural interpretation of the transaction No. 3 between the parties. Learned Counsel has not shown any ruling to indicate that under such circumstances the Plaintiff has a right to treat the third contract as an isolated contract and one for the supply of 155 bags only. For these reasons I consider that the decree of the Court below was correct and I dismiss this application in revision with costs.