Review jurisdiction requires a defect-free petition and an apparent error on the record; dismissal followed when both were absent.

Review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 requires a defect-free petition and an error apparent on the face of the record. The petition remained defective despite Registry communication, and the Court also found no such apparent error on review of the record. The review petition was therefore not maintainable and was dismissed, with no basis made out to reopen the earlier decision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review petition was liable to be dismissed for want of cure of defects and for absence of any error apparent on the face of the record under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

Analysis: The review petition remained defective despite communication from the Registry and the defects were not cured. Independently, on perusal of the petition, no error apparent on the face of the record was found and the requirements for exercise of review jurisdiction were not satisfied.

Conclusion: The review petition was not maintainable on the facts placed before the Court and was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The matter was finally concluded by rejection of review, with no ground made out for reopening the earlier decision.

Ratio Decidendi: Review jurisdiction can be exercised only where a defect-free petition discloses an error apparent on the face of the record; absent both, dismissal follows.

---