JUDGMENT Om Prakash, J. - This is a second appeal by the defendant-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 31.5.1971 of the learned I Additional Civil Judge Agra. The defendant entered into an agreement to purchase 24 bags of chillis from the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 265/- per 50 kg. The plaintiff sent 24 bags to Auraiya to the defendant through the New Janta Transport Co. Agra and the bill of lading and a Hundi for Rs. 2921.13 were sent to the Allahabad Bank Ltd. for delivery to defendant on receipt of payment. The defendant did not make payment hence the papers were returned by the bank to the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff caused a notice to be served by the registered post on the defendant complaining the breach of contract and asking the defendant to take delivery of goods. A fresh Hundi and bill of lading were also sent through the Bank but the defendant again refused to accept the papers nor did lie accept the delivery of the goods. The plaintiff then got the consignment rebooked to Agra from Auraiya where the plaintiff sold 12 bags at the rate then obtained and again offered the remaining goods to the defendant by its letter dated 17.7.1967. The defendant failed to reply the said letter. As there was a breach of contract on the part of the defendant, the plaintiff alleged to have suffered a loss of Rs. 1112.45 on re-sale which was made at a lower rate as the market was down. The suit was, therefore, filed for recovery of that amount plus the amount of interest and cost of the notice. The defendant denied the contract and claim of damages of the plaintiff. The trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff but the lower appellate court decreed the suit for recovery of damages only and thus the appeal was partly allowed. 2. I have heard Sri Navin Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri R. Bharti, learned counsel for the respondent. The trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff but the lower appellate court decreed the suit for recovery of damages only and thus the appeal was partly allowed. 2. I have heard Sri Navin Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri R. Bharti, learned counsel for the respondent. The only point urged by Sri Navin Sinha is that the damages were wrongly computed by the lower appellate court and that the correct way to compute the damages was to award difference of the contractual price and the price that obtained on the date of breach of contract and not the difference of the contractual price and the price that obtained on the date of resale, having been made by the plaintiff. Ordinarily the question as to how much damages are to be awarded, is a question of fact. Sri Navin Sinha has not shown from the record that there was a substantial gap between the date of breach of contract and the date of resale having been made by the plaintiff. Also there is nothing to show that the rate obtained on the date of breach of the contract and on the date of resale varied. Therefore, it is merely academic to consider the legal question whether legally damages are to be computed taking the difference of sale price and the market rate obtaining on the breach. So no interference with the decree is wanted. 3. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The parties however, will bear their own costs so far as this appeal is concerned.