Review jurisdiction requires an apparent error on the record; defective petitions filed after unexplained delay fail the threshold.

Review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 is confined to cases showing an error apparent on the face of the record. A review petition that remains defective despite Registry notice and is filed with inordinate, unexplained delay does not satisfy the threshold for condonation or reconsideration. On the stated facts, no apparent error was made out and the preconditions for review were not met, so the challenge was not maintainable and was rejected on both procedural and substantive grounds.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review petitions, filed with substantial delay and remaining defective, disclosed any ground for review, including an error apparent on the face of the record under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

Analysis: The petitions had not been cured despite notice from the Registry, and the delay in filing was found to be inordinate with no sufficient cause shown for condonation. On merits, no error apparent on the face of the record was made out, and the preconditions for exercise of review jurisdiction were not satisfied.

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

Final Conclusion: The Court declined review and brought the proceeding to an end by rejecting the challenge on procedural and substantive grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: Review jurisdiction is limited to cases disclosing a clear error apparent on the face of the record, and a review petition that remains defective and is also barred by unexplained delay is liable to be dismissed.

---