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?'
