JUDGMENT This is defendant's second appeal under section 100 CPC. Plaintiff-respondent filed suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 16,300/- for non-supply of Dal which was to be supplied by defendant. Civil Judge II, Gadarwara by judgment and decree dated 30.11.1985 passed in Civil Suit No. 14-B/79 decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 13,920/- alongwith the interest. Defendant aggrieved by the same preferred appeal and the First Additional District Judge, Gadarwara by judgment and decree dated 7.9.1988 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3-B of 1985 dismissed the appeal. Defendant being aggrieved by the same has preferred this appeal. By order dated 27.7.1989 appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law : Whether in the instant case, compensation could be awarded for breach of a condition which is not stipulated in the agreement? Facts necessary for the decision of the aforesaid substantial question of law are that there was an oral contract for supply of 240 bags of Dal between the plaintiff and the defendant through broker Samatchand Jain. Defendant inspite of knowledge of the indent did not supply of the food grain. Food grain was to be supplied at the rate Rs. 1082/- per quintal on 3.5.1977 when the contract to supply was entered into and near about the said date Dal was sold at the rate of Rs. 1240/- per quintal and the plaintiff was put to a loss of Rs. 158/- per quintal and consequently he was entitled for a decree of a sum of Rs. 13,920/-. Shri Sohane, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that in the agreement there is no stipulation for payment of compensation for breach of condition and hence the two Courts below committed error of law in decreeing the plaintiff's suit. Shri V.P. Verma, however, appearing on behalf of the respondent, submits that as the plaintiff was put to loss by the defendant on account of breach of contract, plaintiff is entitled to get compensation for the loss. Having heard Shri Sohane, appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri V.P. Verma, appearing on behalf of the respondent and on facts found by the two Courts below that the defendant inspite of the contract did not supply the food grain and there was hike of price at the rate of Rs. 158/- per quintal, plaintiff is entitled to decree for the loss suffered by him. 158/- per quintal, plaintiff is entitled to decree for the loss suffered by him. Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act contemplates compensation for loss or damages caused by breach of contract. As stated earlier, it was the defendant who breached the contract and, therefore, entitled for the decree for the loss suffered by it. Thus, I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel. In the result, I do not find any merit in this appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.