Anil Dev Singh, J. ( 1 ) THIS is plaintiffs suit for rendition of accounts and recovery of the amount found due to the plaintiff from the defendant. ( 2 ) THE facts as stated in the plaint are that the plaintiff was carrying on the business under the name and style of M/s. Foreign Linkers (Personnel ). The plaintiff was duly registered recruiting Agent under the Indian Emigration Act of 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) and was also governed by the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court by its order dated March 20,1979 in this regard. According to the plaintiff the defendent had taken up the project for the construction and completion of a Dam at MOSUL in Iraq. On 2nd/4th September, 1981 the plaintiff and the defendent entered into an agreement whereby the former was required to supply manpower from India to the latter at the construction site of the dam in Iraq. The defendent which is a company based in West Germany also appointed the plaintfiff as its agent vide its power of attorney dated 2nd/4th September, 1981 for the purpose of recruitment of Indian manpower in accordance with the terms and conditions of the aforesaid agreement. The power of attorney was kept alive by the defendent upto august 16, 1987. The agreement provided for the recruitment by the plaintiff of the Indian citizens for their, deployment at defendent s job site situated at MOSUL in Iraq. The plaintiff was to undertake the work. inter alia, on the following terms and conditions: A) Under the agreement the plaintiff was entitled to commission equal to 15 days salary of the workers recruited by him; b) The plaintiff was required to arrange and initially pay for travelling expenses and other ancilliary expenses of the workers so recruited for which the defendent was to reimburse the plaintiff; c) The defendant was responsible for securing the approval of the Competent Authorty in India to every service contract between the worker so recruited by the plaintiff and the defendent. The requisite fee for this purpose was to be paid in the first instance by the plaintiff who was to be reimbursed by the defendent, e) It was the plaintiff s obligation to get the visas of the workers stamped from the Embassy of Iraq against payment of requisite fee which was also to be reimbursed to the plaintiff by the defendent. Besides the plaintiff was entitled to recover all administrative and incidental charges in connection with the recruitment of the workers in India and their deployment into the territory of Iraq. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the averments made in the plaint the plaintiff furnished a security deposit to the tune of Rs. 3 lakhs to the Government of India for the due performance of the terms and conditions of the certificate required under the provisions of Section II of the Act. This security deposit is still with Government of India. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendent has not rendered accounts in relation to the transactions in question despite repeated requests of the former. The plaintiff prays that a decree for rendition of accounts be passed in favour of the plaintiff and agaisnt the defendant so that he is in a position to know as to how much amount is actually due to him from the defendent under the said agreement. ( 4 ) THE defendent was served with summons in the suit on March 8, 1990 but despite service, no one appeared for it and accordingly the defendent was proceeded ex-parte on October 12, 1990. Thereupon the plaintiff was asked to file affidavits by way of evidence. Pursuant to this the plaintiff has filed his own affidavit by way of evidence. In the affidavit facts stated in the plaint have been reiterated. In view of the facts established on the record a decree for rendition of accounts needs to be granted. Accordingly a decree for rendition of accounts is passed in favour of the plaintiff and agaisnt the defendent relating to the agreement datedd. 2nd/4lh September, 1981. Mr. Birender Singh, Advocate is appointed as local commissioner for taking the accounts and for making a report. A fee of Rs. 2500.- will be paid to the local commissioner by the plaintiff.