JUDGMENT : Aggrieved by the order of the III Additional Munsiff Court, Ernakulam in I.A.No.4/2020 in O.S.No.1642/2014 dated 21.5.2020 the petitioners/defendants have filed this original petition. 2. The grievance projected by the petitioners who are the defendants in O.S.No.1642/2014 before the court below is that the petition filed as Ext.P4 to receive additional written statement pursuant to the amendment carried out by the respondents/plaintiffs in the plaint was rejected by the court for the failure to pay cost of Rs.1000/-imposed by the court for receiving the additional written statement. Hence, this Original Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: (A) Set aside Ext.P10 order and direct receiving Ext.P3 to record on payment of cost of Rs.1000/-the time frame for which may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court and also pass any other orders in the context, for receiving Ext.P3 in the interest of justice, equity and law. (B) Direct the court below to consider Ext.P7 application in accordance with law and raise appropriate additional issues within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. (C) Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit to pass in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, equity and law. (D) Award the cost of this original petition. 3. Heard Sri. M.P. Ramnath, the learned counsel for the petitioners as well Sri. P.S. Narayana Raja, the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Ext.P10 order reads as follows: “Both sides represented. Plaintiff submitted that defendants have not paid the costs in I.A.No.4/2020. Defendant submitted that since the costs was not mentioned in the A diary he was unaware of the same. On verification it is found that I.A 4/2020 was allowed on costs of Rs.1000/-within 15 days from the date of order. The contention of the defendant that, I.A 4/2020 was allowed on costs was not mentioned in the A diary is not tenable. The counsel for plaintiff submitted that he is not ready to receive the costs at this juncture. Hence I.A.4/2020 stands dismissed. For evidence on I.A 1/2020 to 04.06.2020” 5. It is pertinent to note that the court below passed a conditional order in I.A.No.4/2020. But as the petitioners failed to comply with the condition to pay costs imposed the petition was dismissed. 6. Hence I.A.4/2020 stands dismissed. For evidence on I.A 1/2020 to 04.06.2020” 5. It is pertinent to note that the court below passed a conditional order in I.A.No.4/2020. But as the petitioners failed to comply with the condition to pay costs imposed the petition was dismissed. 6. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the A Diary maintained in the court it was not specifically recorded that the petition will stand allowed on payment of costs of Rs.1000/-within 15 days from the date of order (29.1.2020) and so the petitioners were unaware of the order of the court. The court below did not consider the fact that though in the A Diary it was not recorded that the petition will be allowed only on payment of cost of Rs.1000/-within 15 days from the date of the order, by Ext.P10, dismissed the petition 7. Rule 382 of Civil Rules of Practice deals with the provision for maintaining A Diary in a court. It reads as follows: “382. A Diary – In all suits, appeals and miscellaneous proceedings, a general diary shall be maintained setting out only the judicial work done in each case. Entries such as filing of the suits, appeals, petitions and issue and return of processes etc. which are only ministerial shall be omitted. The A diary shall be signed by the Judge himself.” 8. A mere reading of this provision makes it clear that A Diary is maintained to record the details of judicial work done in the suits, appeals, miscellaneous proceedings etc posted for the day. Except the ministerial work all the details shall be entered in the A diary. Of-course the entire details are not required to be entered in the diary. But the sum and substance of the judicial work of each case taken up for consideration have to be clearly recorded in the A diary. Definitely if a petition is allowed with a conditional order, that has to be specifically recorded in the A Diary which is meant for recording the relevant entries so as to give intimation to the litigants and others regarding what has transpired in the particular case. An omission to record the conditional order definitely has to be taken seriously. Definitely if a petition is allowed with a conditional order, that has to be specifically recorded in the A Diary which is meant for recording the relevant entries so as to give intimation to the litigants and others regarding what has transpired in the particular case. An omission to record the conditional order definitely has to be taken seriously. The parties to the litigation, their counsel, advocate clerks etc are supposed to verify the A Diary so as to know what has actually transpired in the court with respect to the case posted on each day. It is most significant to note that the rule provides that the judge shall sign the same. That is to ensure the accuracy and authenticity of the entries recorded in the A diary. Entries are supposed to be recorded by the Bench clerk only after verifying the proceedings sheet, order/judgment etc pronounced in the court. Therefore, A diary is an important register. In the report submitted by the learned Munsiff it has been admitted by her that in the A Diary the fact that the petition will stand allowed on payment of cost of Rs.1000/-within 15 days has not been recorded. What is recorded is only 'Allowed'. So there was nothing in the A Diary specifically indicating that the petition was allowed by a conditional order. The entries in the A Diary has to be written with much accuracy as it is a diary which is accessible to the counsel, litigants, Advocate clerks etc for verification. So the presiding officer of the court has to be very careful in maintaining the A Diary. The provision that A Diary has to be signed by the Judge itself would show that the presiding officer of the court has the responsibility in maintaining the A Diary properly. So the failure to record the final order rendered by the court in an I.A in a suit by the clerk concerned has definitely affected the party adversely. Such carelessness is not expected from any corner. It is more pertinent to note that though the learned Munsiff was fully convinced that the order was not correctly entered in the A Diary, did not care to rectify the mistake and allow the party to receive the costs. No doubt, the omission or mistake happened in the court proceedings was under the direct supervision of the presiding officer. It is more pertinent to note that though the learned Munsiff was fully convinced that the order was not correctly entered in the A Diary, did not care to rectify the mistake and allow the party to receive the costs. No doubt, the omission or mistake happened in the court proceedings was under the direct supervision of the presiding officer. Despite the request of the petitioners to receive the cost ordered on the next posting date, the court below rejected the request and dismissed the petition. It is so obvious that the mistake happened from the side of the court itself. However it was not rectified. Moreover the learned Munsiff reported that she had issued show cause notice to the ministerial staff who recorded the A Diary. But what is the justice done to the party who appeared before her has not been explained by her in her report. Such an attitude cannot be appreciated as the mistake was committed by her office itself. Technicalities shall not stand in the way of doing justice to the parties approaching the court for Justice. The court ought to have allowed the application on receipt of cost when it was tendered by the party by suo motu correcting the mistake. With the above observation, I find that the order under challenge is liable to be set aside to do justice to the parties. The petitioners/respondents are permitted to deposit the amount in court within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Upon such deposit the court below shall allow the petition and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. The Original Petition is disposed of.