JUDGMENT R.A. SHARMA, J. Bokaro Steel Limited Company (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a Money Suit No. 55/16 of 1975/79 for recovery of Rs. 2.46,171.50 from the defendant nos.1 & 2 as compensation for breach of contract whereby and where under the defendants agreed to supply firebricks to the plaintiff for construction of coke oven within the delivery time schedule. The trial court decreed the suit directing that the sum of Rs. 1, 34, 394.80 (Rs. One lac thirty four thousand three hundred ninety four and eighty paisa) will be paid by the defendant no. 1 to the plaintiff and Rs. 93, 785/- (Rs. Ninety three thousand seven hundred and eighty-five only) to be recovered from both the defendants jointly and severally with interest pendete lite and future on the aforementioned amount 6% per annum till the amount is realized. Being aggrieved by the said decree, the defendants filed First Appeal before this Court which has been partly allowed by the learned single judge reducing the amount of compensation to Rs.45,970.50 (Rs. Forty five thousand nine hundred seventy and fifty paisa) only. Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned Judge, the plaintiff has filed this appeal under clause 10 of the letters Patent. 2. On 22.2.93 this appeal was admitted by the Division Bench only on a limited point/ question as contained in paragraph no. 135 of the judgment of the learned single judge. The relevant part of the said order admitting the appeal is reproduced below:- "Accordingly, we admit this appeal on the limited point as to whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the learned judge was entitled to pass such an order on the basis as specified in para 135 of the judgment." 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. As the appeal was admitted only on a limited point as specified in para 135 of the impugned judgment, the learned counsel for the parties have confined their argument on that point only. Para 135 of the judgment is reproduced below:- "135 further it is well known that where the parties pre-estimate the damages by way of liquidated damages and not by way of penalty, calculation of quantum of damages by any other form is excluded by necessary implication." 5. Paragraph no. Para 135 of the judgment is reproduced below:- "135 further it is well known that where the parties pre-estimate the damages by way of liquidated damages and not by way of penalty, calculation of quantum of damages by any other form is excluded by necessary implication." 5. Paragraph no. 135 of the judgment contains the well known rule, according to which if the parties have specified the amount of compensation to be paid in the event of breach of contract, it is not open to them claim an unascertained amount as damages. In this connection, reference may be made to Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd ( AIR 1962 SC 1314 ) where in the Apex Court has laid down as under:- "Now when parties name a sum of money to be paid as liquidated damages they must be deemed to exclude the right to claim an unascertained sum of money as damages." x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Where the parties have deliberately, specified the amount of liquidated damages there can be no presumption that they, at the same time, intended to allow the party who has suffered by the breach to give a go-by to the sum specified and claim instead a sum of money which was not ascertained or ascertainable at the date of the breach. 6. Although the proposition contained in paragraph no. 135 represents the correct legal position and no exception can be taken to it but it cannot apply to the instant case because the damage clause as contained in clause 7 of the contract in question has given option to the plaintiff either to claim liquidated damages and/or to purchase from elsewhere without notice to the defendants on their account and at their risk the stores not delivered within the stipulated time schedule. Clause 7 of the contract is reproduced below:- "(7) Should you fail to deliver the stores or any consignments thereof within the prescribed period for such delivery, we shall be entitled at our option:- (a) To recover from you liquidated damages and not by way of penalty a sum at the rate of 1% of the price of any stores which you have failed to deliver for each month or part of a month and to a maximum of 10% during which the delivery of such the stores may be in arrears. and/or (b) To purchase from elsewhere without notice to you, on your account and at your risk, the stores not delivered within the stipulated delivery schedule." In view of the clause 7 of the contract, it is open to the plaintiff either to recover liquidated damages and/or purchase from elsewhere the stores not delivered on the account of the defendants and at their risk and seek the compensation accordingly. The plaintiff is, therefore, not bound to claim only liquidated damages in terms of clause 7(a). It is open to it to seek the compensation in terms of clause 7(b). 7. When the defendant failed to supply the firebricks within the delivery schedule, the plaintiff on 14.6.93 decided to procure firebricks from alternative sources at the risk of the defendants who were informed about it although in terms of the contract, no such information was required to be given to them. The defendants requested the plaintiff to accept the supply of 1/3 quantity of the agreed goods from the defendant no.2 to which the plaintiff agreed but the defendant no. 2 also failed to supply the bricks on account of which the risk purchase clause was invoked again. These facts have been noted by the learned single Judge in paragraph nos. 13 and 14 of his judgment. The trial court has dealt with and highlighted this aspect of the case in detail in its judgment and has granted compensation to the plaintiff in terms of clause 7 (b) of the contract directing the defendants to pay the amount of differential cost incurred by the plaintiff. The learned Single Judge has, however reversed the judgment of the trial court only on the basis of the rule as contained in para 135 of his judgment which as mentioned hereinbefore is not applicable to the present case. The learned Single Judge has, however reversed the judgment of the trial court only on the basis of the rule as contained in para 135 of his judgment which as mentioned hereinbefore is not applicable to the present case. When the contract itself has given option to the plaintiff either to seek liquidated damages under clause 7(a) or claim compensation in terms of clause 7(b) in the event of breach of contract, it is not open to the court to deny him that option. The impugned judgment cannot be sustained. 8. This appeal is allowed. That part of the impugned judgment whereby and where under the point/rule as contained in paragraph no. 135 thereof has been applied to the instant case including the operative portion setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, is set aside. The judgment passed by the trial court is restored. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. A.K. PRASAD, J.-I agree.