ORDER Leave granted. This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment dated 3rd April, 2012 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur in Civil Revision No. 38 of 2012, reversing a decree under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short "the Act") passed by the learned trial Court. 2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 3. A reading of the order of the learned trial Court would go to show that, on consideration of the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3 and 5, the learned trial Court came to the finding that on 19/20th June, 2009, the plaintiff, while she was away, was dispossessed by the defendants Nos. 1 to 7, who not only took forcible possession of the suit property but also unauthorizedly put a lock thereon. Consequently, the defendants Nos. 1 to 7 was directed to deliver vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. 4. A Revision Application was filed by the defendants Nos. 1 to 7 before the High Court. The High Court understood the provisions of Section 6 of the Act to be attracted only if a person is dispossessed of immovable property of which he is the legal owner or is in possession of the said property by virtue of law. On the said basis, the High Court proceeded to re-scrutinize the evidence oblivious of the fact that the it was the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 that was being invoked. 5. Time and again, it has been held and, in particular, in Rame Gowda (Dead) by L.Rs. v. M. Varadappa Naidu (Dead) By Lrs. and another, (2004)1 SCC 769 (Para 8), that the person in peaceful possession is entitled to retain his possession and even a rightful owner who has been wrongfully dispossessed of land may retake possession if he can do so peacefully and without the use of unreasonable force. It has also been held in Rame Gowda (supra) that "If the trespasser is in settled possession of the property belonging to the rightful owner, the rightful owner shall have to take recourse to law.....". On the face of principle, the proposition that Section 6 of the Act is attracted only if a person is dispossessed of property of which he is legal owner is plainly incorrect. On the face of principle, the proposition that Section 6 of the Act is attracted only if a person is dispossessed of property of which he is legal owner is plainly incorrect. That apart, in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the High Court would be primarily concerned with the legality/propriety of the exercise of jurisdiction and cannot and ought not to have appreciated the evidence adduced by the parties which is within the purview and domain of the learned trial Court or an appellate Court. In this regard, the provisions of Section 6(3) of the Act, which specifically bars an appeal from any order or decree passed under Section 6 has to be specifically noted. 6. In view of the above, we come to the conclusion that the reversal of the decree passed by the learned trial Court by the impugned order of the High Court was not justified. We, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court and restore the order and decree passed by the learned trial Court. The appeal, consequently, is allowed as aforesaid.