ORDER
Devinder Gupta, ACJ
1. The appellants have sought review of the order passed by us on 13.4.1999 by which we dismissed the appellants appeal against the order passed on 21.1.1998 by learned Single Judge dismissing the appellants
writ petition.
2. The grounds seeking review is that though the law has correctly been interpreted, but the same has not correctly been applied to the facts of the case. It was contended by Mr. Lekhi appearing for the appellants that conclusions in the concluding part of the judgement need to be reviewed because the case of the appellants was that “cause of action” and not just a “part of cause of action” had arisen in Delhi for two reasons:-
(a) Service of notice in terms of the licence agreement dated 18.12.1984 was at the registered office of the appellant company at Delhi; and
(b) Acceptance of the proposal by respondent No.1 dated 2.6.1984 containing the terms and conditions of the Government order was also in Delhi.
3. In view of the above, it was submitted that the service of notice on the appellants’ registered office at Delhi was an integral part of “cause of action” and, therefore, it ought to have been held that the petition was rightly presented in this Court.
4. Having considered the submissions made at the Bar, we are of the view that the ground urged cannot be said to be a good ground for reviewing the order. In case law has correctly been interpreted, its wrong application to the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be a ground for review for which appropriate remedy would be to challenge the order passed by us, in accordance with law, and not by seeking review. A review cannot be granted on the ground that the decision is erroneous on merits. Such a ground will be an appropriate for an appeal, but not for an application for review and
for that reason, we dismiss this application seeking review.
C.M. No. 1299/99
5. Dismissed as infructuous.