ORDER : 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 19.7.2022 passed by the 2nd Civil Judge Class-I, Surajpur in Succession Case No.15/2014, whereby the trial Court has allowed the application filed by respondents No.3 and 4 for submitting new/second affidavit evidence under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, in which issues were framed on 06.10.2016 and on 11.2.2020 respondents No.3 and 4 have filed first affidavit evidence of Jageshwar Singh along with other witness Thakur Prasad, whereas on 20.6.2022 respondents No.3 and 4 moved an application for filing second affidavit evidence of Jageshwar Singh under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC. Though there is no provision in law for filing of such second affidavit, but by the impugned order, the trial Court has allowed the application and also permitted respondents No.3 and 4 to withdraw first affidavit evidence of Jageshwar Singh. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Mr.Surfaraj Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the procedure adopted by the trial Court is erroneous as there is no concept of withdrawing first affidavit evidence recorded before the Court (examination-in-chief) and such an issue came up before the Bombay High Court in the matter of Banganga Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. v. Vasanti Gajanan Nerukar & others reported in 2015 (5) Bom CR 813, in which it has been categorically held that 2nd affidavit evidence under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC is not permissible under the law. So, he prays to quash the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, Mr.Anurag Singh, learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4, would submit that there is some typographical error in the earlier affidavit, so second affidavit evidence has been filed. He placed reliance in the matter of Syed Nadir Raheem Th. Power of Attorney Syed Amir Jaleel v. Manoj Kumar reported in 2016 SCC OnLine MP 8196. In the said case, name of the person was wrongly mentioned. So second affidavit was allowed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also perused the documents annexed with writ petition. 6. Power of Attorney Syed Amir Jaleel v. Manoj Kumar reported in 2016 SCC OnLine MP 8196. In the said case, name of the person was wrongly mentioned. So second affidavit was allowed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also perused the documents annexed with writ petition. 6. In the earlier affidavit filed by Jageshwar Singh, it is apparent that typographical mistake has been occurred. In clause 3, the word “fookn” was typed and it has been corrected as “ fookg ”. In clause 9 of the earlier affidavit in second line, the word “ pkpk ” has been typed, it has been substituted as “ thru jke ” and in third line in place of “ geus Hkh ” it has been substituted by the word “ Bkdqj oXkSjg us^^ . Considering the nature of correction, second affidavit has been allowed. 7. It is well settled that procedural laws are handmade laws and have been codified to ensure substantive justice between the parties. The trial Court is vested with the judicial discretion to regulate the procedure in the trial and required to apply the procedural law with care and caution bearing in mind the concept of justice equity and good conscious. 8. As two affidavits have been filed, this Court is of the opinion that it should not cause any prejudice to other side. Other side may also be called to put any question in cross-examination in earlier affidavit, which has already been placed on record. 9. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition finally stands disposed of. However, it is made clear that first affidavit, which has already been placed on record, cannot be discarded at all. No cost(s).