Review jurisdiction and error apparent on the record rejected where a hearing statement was treated as an unconditional undertaking.

Review jurisdiction requires a patent error on the face of the record; none was shown here. The Court treated the respondents' statement during hearing to release the amount within two weeks as an unconditional undertaking, not a conditional offer, and found that the reviewed order was not based on any misunderstood offer. The petitioners did not contemporaneously object to that treatment, and their later return of the demand draft did not clearly state that the offer itself was unacceptable. On those facts, no apparent error in the reviewed order was established, and review was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order sought to be reviewed disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record on the ground that the petitioners had not ed the offer made by the respondents for payment of Rs. 7.50 lakh.

Analysis: The review challenge failed because the record showed that the conditional offer earlier made by the respondents was not the basis of the order; rather, the statement made during hearing to release Rs. 7.50 lakh within two weeks was accepted by the Court as an undertaking without conditions. The petitioners did not contemporaneously protest against acceptance of the offer, and their later communication returning the demand draft did not state that the offer itself was unacceptable. On these facts, no patent error in the reviewed order was shown.

Conclusion: The contention of error apparent on the face of the record was rejected and the review petition was dismissed.

---