Review petitions require sufficient cause for delay and a clear error on merits; both grounds failed here.

Review petitions will not be entertained where a party fails to show sufficient cause for a substantial delay and also fails to demonstrate any error in the earlier judgment. The Delhi HC found that internal administrative approval and departmental processing did not justify condonation of a 154-day delay, so the review was barred by limitation. It further held that reliance on later Supreme Court and Bombay High Court orders did not disclose any ground warranting reconsideration on merits. The review petition was therefore rejected, and the earlier judgment remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the review petition was liable to be dismissed for delay of 154 days; (ii) whether any ground was made out for review of the earlier judgment.

Issue (i): Whether the review petition was liable to be dismissed for delay of 154 days.

Analysis: The explanation that the delay resulted from internal administrative approval and departmental processing was not accepted as sufficient cause for condonation.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the review petition failed on limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether any ground was made out for review of the earlier judgment.

Analysis: The reliance placed on later Supreme Court and Bombay High Court orders did not establish any error warranting review of the judgment under challenge.

Conclusion: No ground for review was made out.

Final Conclusion: The review petition was rejected on both delay and merits, leaving the earlier judgment undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Review will not be entertained in the absence of sufficient cause for delay and an error warranting reconsideration on merits.

---