JUDGMENT 1. - The defects pointed out by the registry are waived. 2. For reasons of commonality of facts and law in these appeals, they are being decided by this common order. 3. These appeals under Section 10F of the Companies Act,1956 (hereinafter 'the 1956 Act') have been filed against the order dated 21-1-2015 passed by the Company Law Board, New Delhi (hereinafter 'the CLB'). 4. Heard counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned order. 5. The impugned order dated 21-1-2015 is an interim order requiring the appellants to show cause as to why the petition laid by them under Section 397 and 398 of the 1956 Act apparently on their own case involving intricate questions of forgery and allegations of fraudulent acts of fabrication of documents by the respondents should not be disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to canvass by way of a regular civil suit, the same issues, where the questions of forgery and fraudulent acts could be more appropriately addressed on the basis of appreciation of evidence both documentary and oral in a regular trial. 6. In my considered opinion, there is no occasion to interfere with the impugned order in view of the fact that the matter is still open and the appellants, as petitioners before the CLB will have the opportunity to show cause as to why in the facts obtaining before the CLB the matter is one of oppression and mismanagement in regard whereto relief can be more appropriately granted inter alia by resort to the CLB's expansive powers under Section 402 of the 1956 Act and that the remedy of a civil suit will only be a mirage. There is no ground whatsoever for this court to presume that all arguments laid by the appellants will not be addressed by the Company Law Board. 7. At this stage Mr. Mathur submitted that interference be made by this court for protection of the appellants as against the costs imposed by the Company Law Board in its impugned order. 8. In my considered opinion the issue of costs is a matter of the CLB's discretion and does not fall within the meaning of question of law which triggers appellate jurisdiction under Section 10-F of the Companies Act, 1956. Consequently I am disinclined to entertain the submission of counsel for the appellants. 9. 8. In my considered opinion the issue of costs is a matter of the CLB's discretion and does not fall within the meaning of question of law which triggers appellate jurisdiction under Section 10-F of the Companies Act, 1956. Consequently I am disinclined to entertain the submission of counsel for the appellants. 9. However the appellants shall be at liberty to move an application before the Company Law Board with a prayer for waiver of the costs levied in its order dated 21-1-2015. There is no reason to believe that the Company Law Board will not take a sympathetic view of the matter as the appellants are now before it to address it on merits. 10. Appeals accordingly stand dismissed. 11. A copy of the order be placed in all the files. *******