ORDER H.R. Krishnan, J. 1. This is an appeal from the concurrent judgments against the defendant appellant for compensation for non-delivery according to contract of certain goods ordered from him by the plaintiff; the prices bad gone up and compensation was awarded on the basis of the difference. The defendant's justification was that the plaintiff had failed to comply with one of the terms of the contract for the deposit of 25% of the price as advance. The plaintiff's rejoinder was that his condition printed on the order-form applied only to orders that were to be served through the railway, and not for orders served at Indore itself. This contention being accepted by both the Courts, the suit was allowed. 2. The only question is, whether the condition numbered (sic) on the order-form of the defendant is one applicable to each and every order or applies only to orders through the banks, one of interpretation of a document or contract. That way it can be agitated in second appeal; however, I find it can be answered without noticing the respondent. 3. The conditions in the printed contract are neatly separated and numbered, which work for clarity, every numbered condition being, unless there is in it something expressly to the contrary, self-contained; that is to say, no part of any of the separately numbered conditions will apply to any other condition by way of qualification or by addition, unless, of course, the express wording so indicates. 4. The relevant condition is No. 11, which runs thus: 25% value of the goods ordered is to be paid in advance and for the balance the R/R will be sent through Bank. The advance should be remitted direct to the Company by draft payable to the Company at Indore. There is no connection between this and any of the other conditions. The defendant's case is that the first clause "25% value of the goods ordered is to be paid in advance" is general one governing all orders, and what follows in the same sentence and in the same paragraph "and for the balance the R/R will be sent," is a special condition for orders served by the railway. It being common ground that no advance was paid, this interpretation, if accepted, justifies the refusal on the part of the defendants to deliver the goods and disentitles the plaintiff to any compensation on this account. It being common ground that no advance was paid, this interpretation, if accepted, justifies the refusal on the part of the defendants to deliver the goods and disentitles the plaintiff to any compensation on this account. However, there are difficulties if it was really, intended that the first clause which is an incomplete part of the sentence, should be a general condition, it must have been noted separately without unserverably linking it with the liabilities for orders served through the railway. It is difficult to resist the argument that whatever is contained in Paragraph 11, applies to orders through the railway and to them only; otherwise, we cannot understand why in the sentence, there is a direction that the R.R. should be sent through Bank and the advance itself should be remitted direct to the company by a draft payble of Indore. 5. It is alleged on behalf of the defendant that the vast majority of his orders are served through railway; that is why even a general condition was linked on to the conditions of orders through the railway. But that is no answer to the question. If a condition has been drafted as to cover 99 out of 100 orders, and if there is a hundredth order, which is substantially of a different kind, then that conation will not apply. Possibly, this was not thought of by the defendant; that makes no difference. Again, an advance payment from orders outside the place of the defendant's business centre would be more necessary security against/refusal and damage in transit, than an advance payment by an orderer at Indore itself which is the place of the defendant's business. Certainly any advance payment will always be advantageous; but it is more needed when the order is writing from a distance and, may be, another State than when he is at Indore itself. Be that as it may, when conditions are separately printed, and the very sentence (not to speak of the paragraph) speaking of it refers to a particular class of orders, and there is nothing in that paragraph showing that part of it is of general application, one has to hold that the condition is a self contained one applying to that particular class only. 6. The condition mentioned on the order-form is so simple that it is unnecessary to invoke any of the complicated principles of interpretation. 6. The condition mentioned on the order-form is so simple that it is unnecessary to invoke any of the complicated principles of interpretation. In fact, there is no ambiguity. 7. The result is that the second appeal of the defendant is dismissed summarily. Appeal dismissed