It will be nice if an important doubt that has been doing my mind is answered:

          I presume: 'Courts review its orders in two ways:

                               1. Regular review: i.e. Court passed an order after depth hearing of the case. One of the 

                                    parties is aggrieved and requests for review.

                               2. EXTRA-ORDINARY review. i.e. Court passed an order based on / assuming some facts.

                                    One of the  parties dug up some facts much later. THESE FACTS ARE VERY IMPORTANT

                                    BASIS FOR THE CASE. The facts now on hand with decisive proof shows that the other

                                    party MISREPRESENTED THE BASIC FACTS  i.e. the order is based on wrong

                                    assumptions and lies told to the court in court.
                     

MY DOUBT IS: 'Is the court not bound to review its decision in case 2?'

If the facts discovered subsequently later - were discoverable with due diligence earlier as well - then in that case no review is permissible, because in such cases if review is made permissible there would be no finality to judicial decisiions. 

Sir,

No the facts were not even known to the court. This fact might have been assumed by Hon'ble Bench. The fact has been conclusively unearthed now.