The writ of summons with the statement of claim attached thereto was duly served on the defendant company on 21 June 1983. They had up to 28 June 1983 to enter an appearance. However, it was only on 5 July 1983 that the solicitors on behalf of the defendants purported to enter an appearance.

On 7 July 1983 the defendants' solicitors followed up the said purported entry of appearance and filed and delivered a statement of defence and counterclaim.

Now, the claim of the plaintiffs was a liquidated demand and the plaintiffs were entitled to enter final judgment against the defendants for the amount claimed and costs at any time after the time limited for appearing but before an appearance is entered. (See O 13 r 1 and O 12 r 5.) It is to be noted that a defendant may enter an appearance at any time but not after judgment has been entered except with the leave of the court.

By O 13 r 7, to enter final judgment, the plaintiffs had to produce to the proper officer at the registry a certificate of non-appearance in Form 17 and an affidavit of service of the writ. By O 42 r 10(2) the plaintiffs' solicitors were required to draw up the judgment (which by O 42 r 5 had to conform to Form 79(a)) and this had also to be presented to the proper officer at the registry. Thereupon (if the requisite fees had been paid) the proper officer at the registry, by O 42 r 10(1), was required to enter the judgment in the book kept for that purpose, file the judgment and release a duplicate thereof to the plaintiffs. In practice in Kuala Lumpur no such book is kept at the registry. What is apparently done is that an entry is made on the minute sheet of the court file to the effect that judgment had been entered.

In the instant case, on 4 July 1983 (which was one day prior to the purported entry of appearance by the defendants) the plaintiffs' solicitors delivered to the registry a draft certificate of non-appearance together with a draft judgment in default of appearance. The plaintiffs' solicitors sought approval of the two drafts which approvals they appear to have obtained sometime after 5 July 1983. Fair copies of the approved drafts were filed only on 14 July 1983 on which date the requisite fees therefor was paid in stamps. The assistant registrar concerned thereupon signed each fair copy—each back-dated to 4 July 1984—thereby purporting to issue a certificate of non-appearance as at 4 July 1984 and purporting to enter final judgment in default of appearance.

The real question posed to the court was which came first, entering of the appearance or entering of the judgment in default. One or the other was irregularly allowed to be entered.

A distinction must be drawn between judgments or orders that are pronounced, given or made and judgments that are entered. In the case of the former the pronouncement, giving or making of the judgment or order has to take place before the judgment or order can be drawn up. Such judgments or orders take effect from the day of its date and shall be dated on the date on which it is pronounced, given or made (see O 42 r 7).

In the case of the latter the judgment to be entered has to be drawn up before it is entered (O 42 r 10(2)). Since there is no question of any pronouncement, giving or making of such a judgment and since it comes into effect on its being entered, its date has to be the date that it is entered.

In the instant case the judgment could not have been entered prior to 14 July 1983 since it was only on that date that the judgment to be entered was duly presented to the registry supported by the requisite certificate of non-appearance. The requirements of O 13 r 7 cannot be met by submitting to the proper officer a draft of the certificate. The requirement of O 42 r 10(2) cannot be met by submitting to the proper officer a draft of the order to be drawn up. The actual certificate duly executed by the certifying authority and the judgment duly drawn up has to be presented and only then may the r