Curative jurisdiction applies only within narrow limits, and defective petitions failing those limits were not entertainable.

Curative petitions are entertainable only within the narrow parameters recognised by the Supreme Court, and a petitioner must comply with the required defects and procedural requirements. Here, the petitions remained defective despite notice from the Registry, and the Court found no basis on merits to invoke curative jurisdiction. The petitions therefore did not satisfy the strict conditions for curative relief and were not entertainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Curative Petitions satisfied the limited parameters for exercise of curative jurisdiction.

Analysis: The petitions were found to be defective and the defects had not been cured despite communication by the Registry. The Court nevertheless examined the matter on merits and held that no case was made out to entertain the Curative Petitions within the parameters laid down for curative relief.

Conclusion: The Curative Petitions did not satisfy the requirements for curative jurisdiction and were not entertainable.

Final Conclusion: The proceeding ended in dismissal after a merits-based refusal to invoke curative jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: A curative petition can be entertained only within the narrow parameters recognised by the Court, and where those parameters are not satisfied, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

---