after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Therefore, the mere fact that the dispute between
the parties had once come before this Court cannot
be regarded as a special or exceptional
circumstance justifying the entertainment of this
revision application by this Court. Exercise of
revisional powers is not a matter of course but it is
a matter of rare and sparing use. Hence, as
pointed out above when two fora are available
to the petitioner for getting redressal of the alleged
wrong, then it will certainly be more appropriate
for him to first approach the lower forum. It is
certainly within the discretion of the higher forum,
that is, this Court to consider whether it should
entertain or not of such a revision application
which can lie before the Sessions Judge. In this
respect I am in full agreement with the opinion
expressed by my learned brother R.M. Lodha, J.,
in the case of Tejram v. Sunanda and I am of
the opinion that this Court should not entertain
this revision application which can be entertained
and decided by the Sessions Judge, Panaji. No
question of causing inconvenience or prejudice to
the petitioner arises, if the Sessions Judge, in
exercise of his revision powers, deals with the
application.”
