Registry communication cannot be rectified as a judicial order; miscellaneous applications rejected, with compliance proof still permitted.

A registry note issued to the parties was treated as a communication to facilitate procedural compliance, not as an operative order capable of rectification. As no judicial direction had been passed, the miscellaneous applications seeking rectification were held not maintainable and were rejected. The appellant was allowed to file the certified or authenticated copy of the High Court's disposal before the Registry to cure the defect identified in the note, and the proceedings remained pending for compliance verification.

---

---

Issues: Whether the miscellaneous applications seeking rectification of the Note dated 16.10.2025 were maintainable and deserved to be allowed.

Analysis: The Note was issued for the Registry as a communication to the parties to enable them to take necessary steps, including withdrawal of proceedings from the High Court or appeal before the Tribunal, as they chose. The Tribunal found that no operative order had been passed which required rectification. It also noted the appellant's own disclosure regarding pendency of the same issue before the High Court. The appellant was nevertheless permitted to place the certified or authenticated copy of the High Court's disposal before the Registry to cure the defect pointed out in the Note.

Conclusion: The request for rectification was not accepted and the miscellaneous applications were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Note was treated as a registry communication rather than a rectifiable judicial order, and the proceedings were left pending for compliance verification.

---