This is an application by the first defendant for an order that judgment in default of defence entered against the first defendant on August 17, 1985 be set aside and the costs of the application be costs in the cause.

Mr. V.N. Kumar, counsel for the first defendant, submitted that the judgment entered against the first defendant was an irregular judgment. His ground for saying that the judgment was irregular was that the plaintiff had not complied with Rule 56 of the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 (hereinafter referred to as "Practice and Etiquette Rules 1978"). According to Mr. Kumar the plaintiff did not deny that it had not complied with Rule 56. In his affidavit in support of the application, Mr. Kumar stated that his firm was appointed by the first defendant to act as solicitors and a memorandum of appearance was filed and served on the plaintiff's solicitors. Mr. Kumar submitted that the Practice and Etiquette Rules have the force of law and where there was a mandatory prohibition as contained in Rule 56, any judgment entered without complying with the Rule would be irregular.

Rule 56 states:

"Where the name of the advocate and solicitor