Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. - (1.) This revision is at the instance of the first defendant in a suit, inter alia for declaration that all the authorities of the said first defendant under a power-of-attorney given by the plaintiffs are ceased for ever from the date of execution of the revocation of the said power by the plaintiffs on November 05, 2012 and for other consequential reliefs. In such a suit, the first defendant/petitioner filed an application for being transposed to the category of plaintiff. By virtue of the impugned order dated November 13, 2017, the trial judge has rejected such application upon holding that there is no cogent ground to transpose the defendant no. 1 as plaintiff.
(2.) It is argued by the petitioner that the impugned order is entirely devoid of reasons and, as such, ought to be set aside on that score alone. In support of such proposition, the petitioner cites a judgment, reported at (Uniworth Resorts Limited vs. Ashok Mittal & Anr., 2007 4 CalHN 712), wherein it was inter alia held as follows: "11. In passing the order under appeal, the Company Law Board has completely abdicated its jurisdiction, and obligation, as to the decision-making process. The order passed may as well be a rubber stamp prepared to be used in every case where the Company Law Board is of the opinion that the amendments prayed for should be allowed. There is no reference to any fact or the context in which the amendments were sought to be allowed. There is no mention of what grounds were urged in opposition and why such grounds were unmeritorious. The Tribunal need not have expended pages over the matter but it was necessary to indicate why the order came to be passed. 12. Judicial orders of such nature need to meet the twin tests of "why" and "what". It is the "why" that sustains the "what", reasons are the safeguard, against the ipse dixit of the decisionmaking process. They discuss how the judicial mind has been applied to the matter in issue and convey the nexus between the matters that have been considered and the conclusion based thereon. The justification and the reasonableness of a conclusion depend on the reasons given in support thereof. The order impugned has no element of "why" for the "what" therein to stand on. 13. It is also of some significance that the impugned order has been made at the threshold of proceedings where a petitioner has to pass the just and equitable test before he can have a look in. The Company Law Board has inherited a jurisdiction that has a rich legacy. It has the authority, in such jurisdiction, to hold that a perfectly legal act may, in the context, be inequitable or that an apparently illegal act is justified in the context or by necessity. 14. The order impugned does not show inadequacy of reasons, it has no reasons at all. And in giving no reasons in making the order, a question of law has arisen that can be taken up under Section 10F of the Act. 15. The order impugned is set aside. The Company Law Board shall hear the matter afresh and, if legal submissions are made and "plethora of cases" are placed, they will be referred to and discussed in the order that may be passed upon the fresh consideration of the matter following this remand."
(3.) Next, the petitioner submits that where plaintiffs do not oppose the prayer for transposition, there could not be any reason for the trial court to refuse such prayer. Since the carriage of proceedings lies with the plaintiffs, without any opposition from the plaintiffs, an application for transposition ought to be readily allowed. In support of such proposition, the petitioner relies on a judgment, reported at (Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority & Anr., 2004 10 SCC 745).;