Court dismisses application for recovery of commission citing disputed facts; emphasizes thorough evidence evaluation.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's application seeking a decree for recovery of a specific amount claimed as commission, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive evaluation of evidence due to disputed facts regarding embezzlement and debt adjustment. The court highlighted the distinction between judicial and evidentiary admissions, noting that evidentiary admissions, such as TDS certificates, require thorough examination through evidence presentation and cross-examination. Decreeing the suit prematurely would disregard the defendant's defense. The case was listed for further proceedings to allow for a full examination of the evidence before reaching a decision.

---

---

Issues:
1. Application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for decreeing the suit for recovery of a specific amount.
2. Dispute over the claim by the plaintiff and defense by the defendant regarding the commission and embezzlement.
3. Framing of issues related to distributorship, commission, interest, and relief.
4. Consideration of an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC at an intermediate stage of the suit.

Analysis:
The plaintiff filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC seeking a decree for the recovery of a specific amount claimed as commission for marketing certain products. The plaintiff argued that the defendant issued 11 TDS certificates, which should imply liability to pay the claimed amount. However, the defendant disputed the claim, alleging embezzlement by the plaintiff and asserting a right to adjust any amount due to the plaintiff against the alleged embezzled sum. The defendant contended that the TDS certificates did not constitute an acknowledgment of the debt owed to the plaintiff. The court framed issues related to distributorship, commission entitlement, interest, and relief, and evidence was being recorded when the application was filed.

The court highlighted the distinction between judicial admissions and evidentiary admissions, emphasizing that evidentiary admissions are not sufficient grounds for the summary disposal of a suit under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. Referring to legal precedents, the court noted that evidentiary admissions are subject to challenge through cross-examination and the presentation of contrary evidence. In this case, the TDS certificates were considered evidentiary admissions, not conclusive evidence, especially when disputed questions of fact and ongoing evidence recording were involved.

The court specifically addressed the defense raised by the defendant regarding the adjustment of any amount due to the plaintiff against the alleged embezzlement. It emphasized that this disputed issue required a full examination through evidence presentation and cross-examination. Decreeing the suit at this stage would prematurely reject the defendant's defense without allowing for a proper examination of the disputed facts. Consequently, the court dismissed the application, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence before reaching a decision. The case was listed for further proceedings before the Joint Registrar to fix dates for recording additional evidence.

---