Steve Shim J:

By a summons-in-chambers dated 14 January 1998, the plaintiff has applied for judgment in default of defence to be entered against the defendant pursuant to O. 19 r. 7 Rules of the High Court 1980. It is supported by the affidavit of Tan Huey Sze, the corporate attorney of the plaintiff affirmed on 13 January 1998. The application is resisted by the defendant who files an affidavit affirmed by its counsel Mr. Pertaf Singh on 21 January 1998. Order 19 r. 7 RHC stipulates:

Where the plaintiff makes against a defendant or defendants a claim of a description not mentioned in rules 2 to 5, then, if the defendant or all the defendants (where there is more than one) fails or fail to serve a defence on the plaintiff, the plaintiff may, after the expiration of the period fixed by or under these rules for service of the defence, apply to the court for judgement and on hearing the application the court shall give such judgement as the plaintiff appears entitled to on his statement of claim.

Although it has been held that the use of the pre-emptory word "shall" in the above rule indicates that the court is bound to give judgment on an application under this rule, the c