Court has given orders based on wrong facts. These facts were not known to the court at the time of pronouncing its orders.
I presume courts have two ways to review its orders:
Method 1: Review of its order/s. i.e If there has been ellaborate discussion and the order has been pronounced, but is not found to be suitable to one of the parties, it can appeal for review.
Method 2: IF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE FOUND TO BE FALSE AT A LATER STAGE, PARTY CAN APPEAL TO THE COURT TO REVIEW ITS DECISION. - Is it mandatory for the court (lower court, a quasi judicial body that specifically has powers for such review - THIS ASPECT IS RECORDED CLEARLY IN ITS LAW BOOD) to review its decision.
WHAT SHOULD BE DONE IF THE COURT/JUDGE REFUSES TO REVIEW HIS/ITS JUDGEMENT UNDER THESE VALID CIRCUMSTANCES?
