Refiling cannot substitute a challenged order or create a fresh cause of action in an existing appeal.

An appeal cannot be altered at the refiling stage to replace the impugned orders with a different order and thereby introduce a fresh cause of action. The NCLAT held that once an appeal is filed, the record becomes part of the court record and may be corrected only to cure registry defects; refiling does not permit substitution of the challenged order without leave of the court. Because the original challenge to the earlier orders no longer survived after the substitution, the appeal on that basis was not maintainable. The appellant was left free to challenge the later order independently in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal remained maintainable after the appellant, at the stage of refiling, replaced the impugned orders originally challenged with a different order, thereby altering the cause of action.

Analysis: The appeal was initially filed against orders dated 29.07.2024 and 30.07.2024, but at refiling those orders were removed and a different order dated 02.08.2024 was inserted. The Tribunal held that once an appeal is filed, the record forms part of the court record and cannot be altered at refiling without permission of the court. Refiling is only meant to cure defects pointed out by the registry and does not permit substitution of the impugned order or introduction of a fresh cause of action. Since the original challenge no longer survived after the substitution, the appeal based on the earlier orders could not be entertained.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable on the basis of the original impugned orders and was dismissed, while leaving the appellant free to challenge the later order independently in accordance with law.

---