( 1 ) THIS application (IA No. 468/2001) has been filed by the plaintiff with the prayer for striking out the defendce of the defendant, on the ground of non-production of ledger and accounts by defendant in violation of the undertaking given to this Court in the order dated 19. 9. 2001.

( 2 ) THE main suit filed by the plaintiff is for recovery of Rs. 55 lakhs on account of the alleged non-payment by the defendant company of the charges falling due on account of (i) "liquid Nitrogen" actually supplied by the plaintiff; (ii) fixed facility charges payable by the defendant; and (iii) the compensation in lieu of short lifting/non-lifting of material in terms of agreement dated 16. 3. 1992 as executed between the parties.

( 3 ) DURING the course of arguments, it has been admitted that the only surviving dispute between the parties, is primarily regarding the liability of the defendant on account of the short-lifting/non-lifting of minimum quantity of liquid nitrogen in terms of the agreement dated 16. 3. 1992.

( 4 ) IN fact, as recorded in the order dated 21. 9. 1995 of this Court after hearing the parties, the defendant has been already directed to pay certain admitted amount to the plaintiff. On 26. 9. 1995, the defendant paid Rs. 4,72,500 /- to the plaintiff, which amount was accepted without prejudice to the rights of the plaintiff.

( 5 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff s averments in the application, even leaving aside the amount claimed on account of the short-lifting/non-lifting of material, being Rs. 46,51,671. 20, there were still other dues to the tune of Rs. 11,10,875. 00, on account of the outstanding amount for actual gas supplied, besides Rs. 7,85,900/- on account of fixed facility charges.

( 6 ) FROM the total of these two other outstanding amounts, even after deducting rs. 4,72,500/-paid by the defendant on26. 9. 1995, still the outstanding balance of Rs. 14,25,875 /- remained payable by way of what the plaintiff describes to be admitted liability required to be paid in terms of the orders already passed by this Court.

( 7 ) FROM the perusal of the order sheets, relating to the hearing dated 26. 9. 1995 and of a number of occasions thereafter, the defendant was asked to give its response on the subject of the outstanding amounts, in the context of a statement of which had been handed over by the plaintiffs Counsel, to the defendant in the Court as far back as on 26. 9. 1995.

( 8 ) THE plaintiff filed an application being IA No. 1404/99 under Order 11 Rules 12 and 14 read with Section 151, CPC, for necessary directions to be issued to the defendant to discover on oath the relevant account books in their power of possession, and also for production of ledger accounts of the plaintiffs as forming part of the account books of the defendant, for the years 1992 to 1999.

( 9 ) VIDE order dated 19. 9. 2000, this Court had recorded the undertaking of learned Counsel for the defendant assuring the filing of the true copy of the accounts in the Court and that too within four weeks from the said date.

( 10 ) THE plaintiff s application for discovery and protection, was disposed of on the said undertaking of learned Counsel for the defendant, and acting on the undertaking, the main suit was directed to be listed on 14. 3. 2001 for framing of issues.

( 11 ) THE period of four weeks, as per undertaking given by the defendant through its Counsel, expired in the third week of October, 2000. After waiting for almost a further period of two months, this application (IA No. 468 /2001), was filed by the plaintiff on 16. 1. 2001, praying for the defence of defendant to be struck off.

( 12 ) THE plaintiff/applicant vehemently contends that the defendant has admittedly not complied with either the order dated 19. 9. 2000 or the subsequent order dated 22nd May, 2001 by which the defendant was directed to produce the proper statement of accounts, supported by affidavit of the defendant, specifically stating that there is no transacti