S. B. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THE purport of, the suit filed under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, is in question in the present Civil Revision petition. ( 2 ) IN the said suit, the plaintiff had, inter alia, prayed for the relief of recovery of possession of 300 Square Yards (presently 250 Square Yards) in S. No. 64/1 situated at ameerpet, Sanjeevareddy Nagar, hyderabad. In his plaint, the plaintiff had, inter alia, averred that on 9-3-1990, the defendant illegally occupied the suit property without his consent. It is true that in the plaint, the plaintiff-petitioner had set up his title. The defendant-respondent, on the other hand, in his written statement denied and disputed the title of the plaintiff and, inter alia, contended that he has never been in possession of the suit properties. The learned trial Judge framed two issues, which are as follows: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of defendant from suit schedule property and plaintiff is entitled for possession thereof? (2) To what relief?" ( 3 ) WHILE deciding issue No. 1, it was, inter alia, held that:"it has to be seen whether the defendant has established his possession as stated by him and in any case if his-case is more probable than that of the plaintiff. Suffice it to say that having regard to the fact that the plaintiff utterly failed to establish his possession within 12 years prior to the date of the suit. The burden on the defendant at this stage is very meager. " (paragraph 19)"therefore, there is absolutely no iota of evidence that the plaintiff was in possession as alleged by him or at any point of time in the last 12 years prior to the suit. " (paragraph 25) ( 4 ) THE learned trial Judge in his impugned judgment has proceeded on a wholly wrong premise. From the findings quoted supra, it is also evident that he posed a wrong question unto himself and arrived at a wrong conclusion. He clearly misconstrued the provisions of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and proceeded to decide the said suit as if he had been deciding the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. ( 5 ) SECTION 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, reads thus:"6. He clearly misconstrued the provisions of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and proceeded to decide the said suit as if he had been deciding the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. ( 5 ) SECTION 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, reads thus:"6. Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property:- (1) If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit. (2) No suit under this Section shall be brought- (a) after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession; or (b) against the Government. (3) No appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this Section, nor shall any review of any such order or decree be allowed. (4) Nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title to such property and to recover possession thereof. " ( 6 ) IN a suit filed under section 6 of the specific Relief Act, the issue is very limited. The trial Court is required only to arrive at a rinding of fact as to whether the defendant has dispossessed the plaintiff without his consent or not. Question of title is foreign to the suit. It is further evident from the impugned judgment that the learned trial judge has proceeded on the basis that even in a suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific relief Act, the plaintiff is required to prove not only his title but also his possession for 12 years prior to the date of the institution of the suit as envisaged under Articles 142 and 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908, without even taking into consideration that in terms of Limitation Act, 1963, the position has completely changed by reason of Articles 64 and 65 thereof. ( 7 ) IT is now a well settled principles of law that a Court or a Tribunal must pose unto himself a right question so as to acquaint himself with the correct facts and to enable him to arrive at a right decision. ask a wrong question and get a wrong answer is an age-old saying. The learned trial Judge unfortunately has committed the aforementioned error. ask a wrong question and get a wrong answer is an age-old saying. The learned trial Judge unfortunately has committed the aforementioned error. ( 8 ) ALTHOUGH the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil procedure is very limited, but a Court, when passing an order, takes into consideration a ground which is irrelevant or fails to take into consideration the relevant facts, it commits a jurisdictional error and such an error can be corrected by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115. In Ajanta transports vs. T. V. K. Transports, the Apex court held:"the relevancy or otherwise of one or more grounds of grant of refusal of a permit could be a jurisdictional matter. A grant or its refusal on totally irrelevant grounds would be ultra vires or a case of excess of power. If a ground which is irrelevant is taken into account with others which are relevant, or a relevant ground, which exists, is unjustifiably ignored, it could be said to be a case of exercise of power under Section 47 of the Act, which is quasi-judicial, in a manner which suffers from a material irregularity. Both will be covered by section 115, Civil Procedure Code. "yet again, it is profitable to note that in anisminic vs. Foreign Compensation, it was held:"it has sometimes been said that it is only where a tribunal acts without jurisdiction that its decision is a nullity. But in such cases the word jurisdiction has been used in a very wide sense, and I have come to the conclusion that it is better not to use the term except in the narrow and original sense of the tribunal being entitled to enter on the enquiry in question. But there are many cases where, although the tribunal had jurisdiction to enter on the enquiry, it has done or failed to do something in the course of the enquiry which is of such a nature that its decision is a nullity. " ( 9 ) THE approach of the learned trial judge being a wrong approach, the impugned order suffers from the jurisdictional error and, thus, is liable to be set aside. ( 10 ) THIS revision petition is, therefore, allowed. " ( 9 ) THE approach of the learned trial judge being a wrong approach, the impugned order suffers from the jurisdictional error and, thus, is liable to be set aside. ( 10 ) THIS revision petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned court below for consideration of the matter afresh in accordance with law. Having regard to the fact that the suit was filed in the year 1990, all endeavours must be made by the learned Court below to dispose of the suit as early as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of the lower Court records. There shall be no order as to costs.