Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 22-8-2008, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haridwar, in Misc. Case No. 67 of 2008, Dr. Pradeep Kumar Ghosh and another Vs. Barun Kumar Banerjee, whereby the application of the petitioner filed U/O 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside the expartee decree, was rejected.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that the delay in filing the application U/O 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. was 19 days, and the learned trial court should have condoned the delay.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the respondent can be compensated by award of cost while condoning the delay in filing the application U/O 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (Allahabad Rent Cases, 1998 (2) page 664).

4. It is well settled that the power to condone the delay is the discrtionary power of the court and the courts should be liberal in condoning the delay. I am fortified in my view by the Apex Court judgment in the case of Apangshu Mohan Lodh and others Vs. State of Tripura and others [