RAHUL JAIN Vs. VASANT RAJ PANDIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A. No. 22699/2014 (Under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC).

(2.) THIS is an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for decreeing the suit for recovery of Rs. 42,59,309/ -. The cause of action as averred in the plaint is that plaintiff was appointed as a distributor by the defendant for marketing of the products "Japan Life Total Sleeping System" and plaintiff was entitled to commission on sale of such products. The amount claimed in the suit is said to be commission due to the plaintiff for sale of products as a distributor of the defendant.

(3.) THE defendant by filing the written statement has disputed the claim of the plaintiff. Besides disputing the claim of the plaintiff, in para 5 of the reply on merits, the defendant has pleaded the defence that assuming for the sake of arguments though not admitting that plaintiff is entitled to moneys claimed as incentives even then the defendant would not be liable to pay the suit amount to the plaintiff which would have to and will stand adjusted against the amount cheated/embezzled by the plaintiff. Details of the embezzlement is stated in the earlier part of para 5. Para 5 of the written statement reads as under: -