Review maintainability fails where defects remain uncured, delay is unexplained, and no error apparent is shown.

Review petitions were defective, the defects were not cured despite notice, and the condonation application failed to show sufficient cause for a delay of 693 days. The Court also found no error apparent on the face of the record on independent perusal, so the requirements for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 were not satisfied. The petitions were therefore not maintainable and were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review petitions deserved to be entertained despite defects, inordinate delay, and absence of any error apparent on the face of the record.

Analysis: The review petitions were found defective and the defects had not been cured despite notice. There was also an enormous delay of 693 days, and the application for condonation did not disclose sufficient cause. On an independent perusal, no error apparent on the face of the record was found, and the requirements for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 were not satisfied.

Conclusion: The review petitions were not maintainable and were liable to be dismissed.

---