The last contention urged by counsel. for the appellants on the quantum of loss claimed by the respondent comprised a twopronged attack against the' re-sale held in respect of the defaulted lots of ,coffee. First, the Board was under an obligati:on to mitigate or minimise the loss arising from the failure on the part of the appellants to pay for and take delivery of tbe coffee allotted to them at the pool auction, but instead deliberate mea~ures were taken by the Board to bring down the prices of coffee and then effected a re-sale on December 23, 1952 resulting in the alleged loss of Rs. 34,570-6-6 and Rs. 5,917 respectively, which could not be regarded as a loss directly and naturally arising from the breach in the ordinary course of events, but' was unreal, created and brought about by the respondent and, therefore, the same was not recoverable from the appellants. Secondly, the re-sale was not held within reasonable time of breach but was inordinately delayed and, therefore, the appellants were not liable for the quantum claimed. It may be stated that the contention that the defaulted coffee ought to have been put up for sale at Export Auction and not at Pool Auction, though urged in the lower Courts, was not pressed before us. For the reasons which we sha.Jl indicate presently, we do not find substance in either of these two grounds of attack.
