Honble YADAV, J. – List is revised. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. G.S. Bapna is present whereas irrespective of sufficient service on the defendant-respondents neither they are present personally nor they have engaged any counsel to do `Pairvi on their behalf. Thus, the Court has no alternative except to proceed ex parte against the defendant-respondents as postulated under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 17 of Order 41, CPC. (2). Instant first appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 24.1.1986 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, No. 1, Bharatpur in Civil Suit No. 25 of 1981 whereby he dismissed the plaintiffs suit for recovery of Rs. 10,000/- with interest. (3). Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal, are that the plaintiff entered into a contract with defendant No. 1 through defendant No. 2 for purchase of two Railway Tankers of imported repeseed oil on 1.9.1977 at the rate of Rs. 6,600/- per tonne with the condition that the goods will be delivered by 7th October, 1977 at Bharatpur. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- was also paid to defendant No. 1 as advance in respect of the contract. (4). It is also averred in the plaint that since the goods were not delivered with the stipulated time, the plaintiff sent a telegram on 7.10.1977 cancelling the contract and requesting defendant No. 1 to return Rs. 10,000/- with interest. However, defendant No. 1 failed and neglected to refund the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with interest which has necessitated the plaintiff- appellant to file the present Civil Suit for reco- very of the aforesaid amount with interest on 30.1.1978. (5). Defendant No. 1 filed a detail written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and inter alia alleged that it was the duty of the plaintiff to have taken the delivery of the goods at Bombay. It is also alleged that since the plaintiff failed to take delivery of goods at Bombay it was the plaintiff who committed brea- ch of contract in question, hence, the defendant was entitled to forfeit Rs. 10,000/- as earnest money paid by the plaintiff-appellant. The plea regarding jurisdiction was also raised. (6). On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed as many as eight issues focussing the attention of the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims. (7). 10,000/- as earnest money paid by the plaintiff-appellant. The plea regarding jurisdiction was also raised. (6). On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed as many as eight issues focussing the attention of the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims. (7). The plaintiff in support of his claim examined himself and adduced Ex. 1 a letter written by him to the defendant, Ex. 3 - letter sent by him and the telegram sent by him to the defendant. He also produced Ex. 8 F.O.R. Contract along with receipt of registered letter sent to the defendant, its acknowledgement receipt and posting certificate. In rebuttal, the defendant got examined Shyam Sunder Kandelwal as D.W. 1 and adduced copies of phonograms Ex. A/1 to A/3. (8). Heard learned counsel for the appellant. (9). Perused the judgment and decree under appeal. (10). Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant at the first instance contended that according to F.O.R. Contract Ex. 8, the goods were to be delivered at Bharatpur by Train, hence, it was the duty of the defendants to have loaded the goods in the train and only then thereafter their liability would have come to an end. The learned counsel for the appellant further urged before me that in the present case, indisputably the goods were never loaded in the train by the defendants, therefore, it is defendant No. 1 who has committed breach of contract and not the plaintiff- appellant as held by the learned trial court. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on a decision rendered by learned Single Judge of Madras High Court in case of M/s. Indian Coffee and Tea Distributing Co. Ltd. vs. State of Madras (1). (11). From the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff- appellant and also from the evidence available on record, the following two questions for determination are involved in the present case :– 1. WHETHER the learned trial court has correctly understood the nature of F.O.R. contract entered between the parties in the present case ? 2. WHETHER the learned trial court has rightly arrived at a finding that breach of contract in question has been done by the plaintiff and not by the defendants ? QUESTION Nos. 1 and 2 :– (12). WHETHER the learned trial court has correctly understood the nature of F.O.R. contract entered between the parties in the present case ? 2. WHETHER the learned trial court has rightly arrived at a finding that breach of contract in question has been done by the plaintiff and not by the defendants ? QUESTION Nos. 1 and 2 :– (12). Since both the points for determination formulated in preceding paragraph are inter-linked, therefore, these points are dealt with together:– (13). It is to be imbibed that the expression F.O.R. stands for `Free on Rail in international business terminology therefore the terms of F.O.R. contract must be understood in the sense that in such contracts the seller is to bear all the expenses prior to putting the goods on rail. As soon as the goods are put on transit on rail, the responsibility of the seller ceases and the risk as well as property vests in the buyer, prior to putting the goods on transit on rail the seller alone must bear the damages to the goods. See Underwood Ltd. vs. Burgh Castle Brick & Cement Syndicate (2) and Colley vs. Overseas Exporters Ltd.(3). (14). In a contract of the nature of F.O.R. it is the seller who undertakes to deliver the goods into railway wagons or at the station depending on the practice of the particular railway at his own expenses. Here in the present case indisputably the contract between the parties was of F.O.R. nature and the defendants have not adduced any evidence in support of the fact that the goods were delivered to the railway wagons or at least to railway station for transit to Bharatpur. Thus it is crystal clear that in the present case defendant-seller miserably failed to establish the fact that he loaded the goods either into railway wagons or at least to the railway station according to the practice prevalent at a particular railway at his own expenses. The failure of the defendant-seller in the present case in not putting the goods in transit in railway wagons or railway station for Bharatpur makes him accountable for breach of contract and the learned trial court has misunderstood the expression F.O.R. Bombay and sale condition despatchable at Bharatpur upto 7.10.77. One of the terms and conditions stipulated in the contract Ex. 8 on the record. (15). One of the terms and conditions stipulated in the contract Ex. 8 on the record. (15). I am fortified in taking the aforesaid view from the decision rendered in case of Messers India Coffee and Tea Distributing Co. Ltd. (supra). (16). A close scrutiny of the judgment of the learned trial court while recording finding on issue No. 4 reveals that it has clearly noticed the terms stipulated in Ex. 8 as follows :– ``F.O.R. Bombay and sale condition despatchable to Bharatpur upto 7.10.77. (17). Even after noticing the aforesaid bilateral terms and conditions stipulated in Ex. 8 as quoted above, the learned trial court has incorrectly arrived at a conclusion that it is the plaintiff who has committed the breach of contract on the basis of subsequent unilateral correspondence between the plaintiff- appellant and defendant-respondents. (18). It is well to remember that contracts are always entered into between the parties on the basis of bilateral terms and conditions which are not capable to be changed subsequently. On the basis of unilateral correspondence of the parties to hoodwink the legitimate terms and conditions arrived at by them at the time of contract can not be allowed to be changed. In the present case the learned trial court has committed serious error of law and procedure on placing reliance upon subsequent unilateral correspondence of the plaintiff-appellant and defendant-res- pondents changing the bilateral terms and conditions stipulated in F.O.R. Contract Ex. 8 dated 1.9.77. (19). In view of what have been discussed above the instant appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree under appeal, passed by learned trial court on 24.01.86 is hereby set aside. Suit filed by plaintiff is hereby decreed for recovery of Rs. 10,000/- with interest as claimed by him together with interest pendente lite. As the defendant-respondents have not appeared to oppose the present appeal there- fore cost is made easy.