-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4112 OF 2007 Jasodaben wd/o. Kantilal Patel & Ors. : Petitioners (Orig.Defendants) V/s. Kritram Adityaram Dhyani & Ors. : Respondents (Resp.No.1-Orig.Pltff. Resp.Nos.2 to 4 - Orig. Defendant nos.2 to 4) ... Mr.S. Murthy for the petitioners. ... CORAM : S.A.BOBDE, J. DATE : AUGUST 30, 2007. P.C. 1. The only contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the respondent no.1 was not entitled to file an additional affidavit of examination-in-chief. The respondent no.1 initially filed an affidavit which did not contain a reference to certain documents which were filed and, therefore, the trial Court has permitted the respondent no.1 to file an additional affidavit to introduce a statement referring to the documents in order to prove the documents. It is pertinent to note that the documents were already on record. The trial Court has, therefore, allowed such an additional affidavit. 2. No provision of law was relied upon to show that this is not permissible. Procedural laws are meant to be the hand-maiden of justice, as observed by the Supreme Court. -: 2 :- Therefore, where something is allowed to correct a mistake, such an order does not deserve interference. 3. In the result, there is no merit in the petition which is hereby dismissed. S.A. BOBDE, J.