ORDER : 1. This is a revision by the deft, against the judgment and decree of the Diet. J. of Gwalior. The pltf. filed a suit against Maharajsingh and Layakram in the Ct. of Pragana Girda for the recovery of Rs. 380 on the ground that the deft, had entered into a contract with the pltf. to supply 20 Khandia (400 Mds.) of wood at the rate of Rs. 11 a Khandi and had also taken an advance of Rs. 200 and he broke the contract. The sum of Rs. 380 claimed from the deft, consisted of the advance of Rs. 200 and damages of S. 180. The trial Ct. decreed the suit only to the extent of Rs. 200. Both the deft. and the pltf. filed appeals in the Ct. of the Dist. Sub-Judge, Gwalior. The Dist. Sub-Judge allowed the appeal of the deft. and dismissed the suit of the pltf. in toto. Against this decision, the pltf. filed an appeal in the Ct. of the Dist. J., Gwalior, who decreed the entire suit of the pltf. Hence the deft, has filed this revision. 2. The question raised in revision is that the damages claimed by the pltf. being too remote, the lower Court was wrong in allowing them. The question as to whether the contract has been broken by the deft, or not being a question of fact, it cannot be agitated in revision. The only question, therefore, for consideration is whether the damages claimed by the pltf. can be decreed against the deft, or not. Under S. 73, Contract Act only such damages are allowable as naturally arise in the usual course of things from breach of contract or as the parties know, when they make the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it. Neither a persual of the contract nor the evidence on record shows that the parties had entered into a contract for the supply of wood in order that the pltf. may sell it at the rate of Rs. 20 a Khandi. It is no doubt true that the pltf. owns a wood stall and that deft, was aware of this fact. But he had no knowledge that the pltf. wanted wood for re-sale at his stall at a stipulated rate. Hence the deft, is not liable for loss of profit. The case of Hadley v. Baxendale, (1874) 9 Ex. It is no doubt true that the pltf. owns a wood stall and that deft, was aware of this fact. But he had no knowledge that the pltf. wanted wood for re-sale at his stall at a stipulated rate. Hence the deft, is not liable for loss of profit. The case of Hadley v. Baxendale, (1874) 9 Ex. 341 : (23 L. J. Ex. 179) is a noted English case on the point. (Vide Illus. (i) and (j) to S. 73, Contract Act, and Contract Act by Pollock and Mulla, 7th Edn. at pp. 390 and 391 Note of special Circumstances and Note of contract of re-sale). Under these circumstances, the pltf. is entitled to get only such damages as naturally arise in the usual course of things from the breach of the contract. The measure of damages upon a breach is a difference between the contract price and the market price on the date of the breach. It is not necessary to prove that the buyer sustained any actual loss from the seller's failure to deliver goods. The buyer is entitled to receive from the seller by way of compensation the sum by which the contract price falls short of the price for which the buyer might have obtained the goods of like quality at the time when they ought to have been delivered. (Vide Ismail Sait and Sons v. Wilson and Co., 41 Mad. 709: (a. i. R. (6) 1919 Mad. 1053) and Erroll Mackay v. Kameshwar Singh, 11 Pat. 600 : (a. i. R. (19) 1932 P. C. 196). But the pltf has adduced no evidence to prove what the market price of the wood of the kind contracted for was at the time when it ought to have been delivered. The only evidence that he has adduced is that he sold the wood at his stall at the rate of Rs. 20 a Khandi at the time of the breach of contract. Under these circumstances damages cannot be assessed. The lower Ct. was wrong in giving the pltf. compensation for loss of profit at the rate of Rs. 9 a Khandi. As pointed out above, damages for loss of profit can only be given when the parties have knowledge at the time of entering into the contract that they would result from the breach of it. In my judgment, therefore, the revision should be accepted. 3. compensation for loss of profit at the rate of Rs. 9 a Khandi. As pointed out above, damages for loss of profit can only be given when the parties have knowledge at the time of entering into the contract that they would result from the breach of it. In my judgment, therefore, the revision should be accepted. 3. In the result I allow the revision and set aside the decree of the lower Ct. in respect of damages. The petnr. to get his proportionate costs from the opposite party throughout.