Short Note : 1. Exhaustive statement of facts is not necessary for decision of this revision. Suffice it to state that the plaintiff-non-applicant No.1 has instituted the present suit on grounds of default in payment of arrears of rent and genuine requirement for his son for starting Kirana shop in the suit premises. 2. During pendency of this suit, non-applicants submitted an application for adding names of non-applicants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 as co-plaintiffs, claiming to be purchasers of the suit premises vide registered sale-deed dated 25-5-1977. This application was opposed by the defendant-applicant but the same has been allowed by the impugned order reserving right to raise objections in the written statement of the question whether cause of action survives or not on merits. Held : In the reply submitted to the application made by the non-applicants for addition of non-applicants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 as co-plaintiffs to the suit, the factum of sale deed has not been denied. What has been stated is simple that the defendant-applicant has no knowledge of the transaction or sale. This plea does not amount to denial of the transaction of sale but amounts to admission thereof. 1960 JLJ 1008 . 3. This brings me to the contention advanced on behalf of the non-petitioners viz., in respect of illegality of that part of the order which concerns itself with order of substitution instead of addition. By their application, the non-petitioners never prayed for substitution of non-applicants Nos. 2, 3 and 4. A specific prayer was made in the application for addition of non-applicant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 as co-plaintiff with plaintiff-non-applicant No.1. As such in the impugned order the word "substitution" appear., to have been employed by mistake. The trial Court had no jurisdiction to grant relief not prayed for by the non-petitioner. The relief of substitution did not flow from either the application or facts before the Court. Therefore, the order of substitution is without Jurisdiction, Although non-petitioners have not filed any revision against this part of the order, yet the whole matter is before this Court. In view of the fact that the order of substitution is without jurisdiction, interference is being made in suo motu revisory jurisdiction of this Court. 4. Therefore, the order of substitution is without Jurisdiction, Although non-petitioners have not filed any revision against this part of the order, yet the whole matter is before this Court. In view of the fact that the order of substitution is without jurisdiction, interference is being made in suo motu revisory jurisdiction of this Court. 4. After having heard the learned counsel for both the parties on the question I am inclined to set aside that part of the order which concerns itself with substitution of plaintiff-non-applicant No.1 by other non-petitioners. The suo motu revisory jurisdiction is being exercised in order to do complete justice between the parties and with an aim not to permit the trial to go on in an illegal manner. 1960 JLJ 1008 , relied on. Revision dismissed.