JUDGMENT 1. These two revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner-defendant (for short, 'the defendant') against the order dated 16.12.2020 passed by the trial court whereby the applications filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in Civil Suit Nos. 99/2020 and 100/2020 have been dismissed. 2. Facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff (for short, 'the plaintiff') filed two suits for infringement and passing off of trade mark, permanent injunction, damages and rendition of accounts against the defendants (i) M/s. Rajkumar Vishandas & Sons and (ii) M/s. Rajkumar Vishandas Corporation. In the said suits, it was averred that the plaintiff is a registered firm under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The said partnership firm was established in the year 1961 by the grand father of Rajesh Thawrani and Prakash Thawrani. In the year 1986, the said partnership firm was converted into a proprietorship firm and on 1.4.2021, it was again converted into a partnership firm, of which Rajesh Thawrani, Prakash Thawrani, Rajkumar Thawrani and Bhagwan Das Ji were the partners. After the death of Bhagwan Das Ji on 12.8.2013, dispute arose between Rajesh Thawrani, Prakash Thawrani and Raj Kumar Thawrani, partners of the firm. On 3.4.2015, Raj Kumar Thawrani wrote a letter to the other partners as well as firm and retired from the said partnership firm voluntarily. In this way, on retirement of Raj Kumar Thawrani from the partnership firm, Smt. Gauri Thawrani was inducted as a partner of the firm, for which amended partnership deed was executed and an entry was made in the record of Registrar of Firms. 3. It was also averred that thereafter the said partnership continued. After voluntary retirement of Raj Kumar Thawrani from the said Partnership firm on 3.4.2015, he filed a petition before Rajasthan High Court seeking his share in the said Partnership Firm, upon which Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.C. Goyal (Retd.) was appointed as an Arbitrator, who on 2.6.2018, while dismissing the claim petition and allowing the counter claim, awared a sum of Rs. 51,10,029/- in favour of Raj Kumar Thawrani. Against the said award, objections were filed and the same are pending adjudication before the competent court. 4. It was also averred that the said partnership firm has also been registered under the Trade Mark Act, 1999 and its registration is valid till 6.7.2028. 51,10,029/- in favour of Raj Kumar Thawrani. Against the said award, objections were filed and the same are pending adjudication before the competent court. 4. It was also averred that the said partnership firm has also been registered under the Trade Mark Act, 1999 and its registration is valid till 6.7.2028. Despite the fact that it is within the knowledge of the defendants that the plaintiffs are doing business in the name and style of 'M/s. Raj Kumar Vishandas', the defendant started running a business in the name and style of 'M/s. Rajkumar Vishandas and Sons' and M/s. Rajkumar Vishandas Corporation. 5. The defendant filed applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and raised objections with regard to res-judicata and deficit court fees, which came to be dismissed by the trial court vide its order dated 16.12.2020. Hence, these revision petitions have been filed. 6. So far as issue of res-judicata is concerned, learned counsel for the defendant concedes that on the basis of res-judicata, plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC. 7. Learned counsel further submits that the plaintiff is doing business in the name of two firms namely "Rajkumar Bisandas and Sons"and "Rajkumar Bisandas & Corporation". The plaintiff-claimant filed a claim petition before the Arbitrator claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 1.50 crore, which was dismissed by the Arbitrator. Against the award passed by the Arbitrator, objections were filed by the plaintiff before the Commercial Court concerned and the same are pending adjudication. He further submits that the objection with regard to Trade mark was not raised by the plaintiff-claimant before the Arbitrator and the same was relinquished, therefore, the plaintiff cannot raise the said objection in the suits filed by it before the trial court and the suits are barred by the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. Learned counsel further submits that since the objections against the award passed by the learned Arbitrator are pending consideration before the Commercial Court, therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 5 readwith Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, the suits are not maintainable. He further submits that the plaintiff initiated the arbitration proceedings claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 1.50 crore, whereas in the suits filed by the plaintiff, specific value has not been mentioned and the plaintiff has filed suits which are undervalued. He further submits that the plaintiff initiated the arbitration proceedings claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 1.50 crore, whereas in the suits filed by the plaintiff, specific value has not been mentioned and the plaintiff has filed suits which are undervalued. On these counts, the plaints filed by the plaintiff are liable to be rejected. 8. In support of his contentions, he has placed relied on the following judgments: i) Eros International Media Limited Versus Telemax Links India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 2179 ii) R. Raghavan Versus Dr. R. Venkitapathy reported in 2013 (2) CTC 172 iii) Meenakshisundaram Chettiar Versus Venkatachalam Chettiar reported in (1980) 1 SCC 616 iv) State Bank of India Versus Gracure Pharmaceuticals Limited (2014) 3 SCC 595 v) Virgo Industries (Eng) Private Limited Versus Venturetech Solutions Pvt. Limited (2013) 1 SCC 625 vi) T. Arivandandam Versus T.V. Satyapal & Anr. reported in (1997) 4 SCC 467 vii) K. Akbar Ali Versus K. Umar Khan and others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 238 viii) Annant Pal Singh Versus Sumer Singh & Anr. (S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 38 of 2010, order dated 22nd December, 2016) ix) Key Pee Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Versus Shahjahan Begum (MANU/RH/0432/2015) x) Madan Lal Vaid Versus Nand Kumar Walia & Ors. (MANU/DE/1282/2001) xi) Holy Heralth and Educational Society Versus Delhi Development Authority (MANU/DE/0413/1999) xii) Asha Khanna and others Versus Pankaj Khanna and others (MANU/DE/0243/2015) xiii) Mahaveer Sadhna Sansthan Versus Smt. Shashi Mathur (2017) 2 RLW 924 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Srihari Hanumandas Totala Versus Hemant Vithal Kamat and others reported in (2021) 9 SCC 99 that on the basis of res-judicata, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. He further submits that even otherwise, the objection with regard to Order 2 Rule 2 CPC was not raised in the applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. He further submits that at the time of deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the averments made in the plaint are germane and the objections of trade mark and deficit court fee are wholly irrelevant. 10. Heard. Considered. 11. He further submits that at the time of deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the averments made in the plaint are germane and the objections of trade mark and deficit court fee are wholly irrelevant. 10. Heard. Considered. 11. So far as the point of res-judicata is concerned, it is no more res-integra and the same issue has been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Srihari Hanumandas Totala (supra), where their Lordships held as under: "18. Section 11 of the CPC enunciates the rule of res judicata : a court shall not try any suit or issue in which the matter that is directly in issue has been directly or indirectly heard and decided in a 'former suit'. Therefore, for the purpose of adjudicating on the issue of res judicata it is necessary that the same issue (that is raised in the suit) has been adjudicated in the former suit. It is necessary that we refer to the exercise taken up by this Court while adjudicating on res judicata, before referring to res judicata as a ground for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11. Justice R C Lahoti (as the learned Chief Justice then was), speaking for a two Judge bench in V. Rajeshwari v. T.C. Saravanabava discussed the plea of res judicata and the particulars that would be required to prove the plea. The court held that it is necessary to refer to the copies of the pleadings, issues and the judgment of the 'former suit' while adjudicating on the plea of res judicata: '11. The rule of res judicata does not strike at the root of the jurisdiction of the court trying the subsequent suit. It is a rule of estoppel by judgment based on the public policy that there should be a finality to litigation and no one should be vexed twice for the same cause. X X X 13. Not only the plea has to be taken, it has to be substantiated by producing the copies of the pleadings, issues and judgment in the previous case. Maybe, in a given case only copy of judgment in previous suit is filed in proof of plea of res judicata and the judgment contains exhaustive or in requisite details the statement of pleadings and the issues which may be taken as enough proof. Maybe, in a given case only copy of judgment in previous suit is filed in proof of plea of res judicata and the judgment contains exhaustive or in requisite details the statement of pleadings and the issues which may be taken as enough proof. But as pointed out in Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai v. Mohd. Hanifa [ (1976) 4 SCC 780 ] the basic method to decide the question of res judicata is first to determine the case of the parties as put forward in their respective pleadings of their previous suit and then to find out as to what had been decided by the judgment which operates as res judicata. It is risky to speculate about the pleadings merely by a summary of recitals of the allegations made in the pleadings mentioned in the judgment. The Constitution Bench in Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal [ AIR 1964 SC 1810 : (1964) 7 SCR 831 ] placing on a par the plea of res judicata and the plea of estoppel under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, held that proof of the plaint in the previous suit which is set to create the bar, ought to be brought on record. The plea is basically founded on the identity of the cause of action in the two suits and, therefore, it is necessary for the defence which raises the bar to establish the cause of action in the previous suit. Such pleas cannot be left to be determined by mere speculation or inferring by a process of deduction what were the facts stated in the previous pleadings. Their Lordships of the Privy Council in Kali Krishna Tagore v. Secy. of State for India in Council [(1887-88) 15 IA 186 : ILR 16 Cal 173] pointed out that the plea of res judicata cannot be determined without ascertaining what were the matters in issue in the previous suit and what was heard and decided. Needless to say, these can be found out only by looking into the pleadings, the issues and the judgment in the previous suit.' (Emphasis supplied by me) 12. In the case of Alka Gupta Versus Narender Kumar Gupta (Civil Appeal No. 821 of 2010), it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court: "7. Needless to say, these can be found out only by looking into the pleadings, the issues and the judgment in the previous suit.' (Emphasis supplied by me) 12. In the case of Alka Gupta Versus Narender Kumar Gupta (Civil Appeal No. 821 of 2010), it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court: "7. A suit cannot be dismissed as barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code in the absence of a plea by the defendant to that effect and in the absence of an issue thereon. 9. Unless the defendant pleads that bar under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code and an issue is framed focusing the parties on that bar to the suit, obviously the court cannot examine or reject a suit on that ground. The pleadings in the earlier suit should be exhibited or marked by consent or at least admitted by both parties. The plaintiff should have an opportunity to explain or demonstrate that the second suit was based on a different cause of action." (Emphasis supplied by me) 13. In the case of State Bank of India (supra) relied upon by counsel for the defendant, taking into consideration the fact that the cause of action to file the present suit accrued in favour of 14. the plaintiff on previous occasions and the cause of action was continuing and subsisting, their Lordship of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the respondent had omitted certain reliefs which were available to it at the time of filing the first suit and after having relinquished the same, it cannot file a separate suit in view of the provisions of sub-rule 2 of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. 15. In the case of Virgo Industries (Eng) (P.) Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the defendant, taking into consideration the fact that on 29.5.2007, OSs Nos. 202 and 203 were filed by the plaintiff in the Court of the District Judge, Thiruvallur seeking a decree against the defendant for execution and registration of the sale deeds in respect of the same property and for delivery of possession thereof to the plaintiff and in the aforesaid latter suits, it was mentioned by the plaintiff that in respect of the same suit property it had earlier filed suits numbers CSs Nos. 831 and 833 of 2055 seeking the relief of permanent injunction, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that subsequent suit is not permissible when cause of action for later (subsequent) suit is the same as in the first suit. 16. In these facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the plaint under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC can be rejected. The aforesaid judgments do not apply to the facts of the instant case. Other judgments relied upon by counsel for the defendant also do not apply to the facts of the present case. 17. From the material on record, it is evident that the objection with regard to Order 2 Rule 2 CPC was not taken in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Further in light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Alka Gupta (supra), and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the opinion that (firstly) since arbitral proceedings do not fall within the definition of suit and the provisions of CPC do not strictly apply to arbitration matters, as provided under Section 19 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC; (secondly), in the arbitration proceedings in question, the arbitrator decided the issue of the compensation. What was the dispute referred to the arbitrator and what were the objections taken in the said arbitration proceedings, cannot be looked into at the stage of deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Further, the point of trade mark was also covered in the aforesaid proceedings or not, cannot be gone into at this stage; and (thirdly) contentions of learned counsel for the defendant are self contradictory. On the one hand, in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC the defendant has raised the objection of res-judicata, on the other hand, the objection of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC has been taken. In my opinion, if res-judicata applies, then provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC would not be applicable. 18. So far as the applicability of Section 5 readwith Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are concerned, (firstly), no such objection was taken in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and (secondly), this objection is also self -contradictory. 19. 18. So far as the applicability of Section 5 readwith Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are concerned, (firstly), no such objection was taken in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and (secondly), this objection is also self -contradictory. 19. So far as deficit court fee is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that on account of deficiency of court fees, plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC without following the procedure prescribed under Order 7 Rule 11 (c) CPC. 20. Also in the facts and circumstances of the case, the issue of deficit court fee can be decided only after framing the issue and leading evidence by the parties. 21. The findings arrived at by the trial court are just and proper, with which I fully concur. There is no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders passed by the trial court. 22. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no force in these revision petitions and the same being bereft of any merit are liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. 23. Consequent upon the dismissal of the revision petitions, stay applications also stand disposed of accordingly.