JUDGMENT VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J. 1. Learned advocate for the petitioner seeks permission to amend the prayer clause. Permission as prayed for is granted. Learned advocate for the petitioner also seeks permission to delete respondent No.5. Permission as prayed for is granted. Respondent No.5 is deleted. 2. Rule. Learned Advocate Mr. Jigar M. Patel waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent - Bank. 3. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in which the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.11.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Junagadh in Civil Misc. Application No.24 of 2015, by which, the concerned District Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay of 6 months and 21 days in filing appeal before the District Court. 4. Heard learned advocate Ms. Nasrin N. Shaikh for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Jigar M. Patel for the respondent - Bank. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was serving as Branch Manager in the respondent Bank. Respondent Bank terminated the services of the petitioner and therefore petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No.38 of 2007 challenging the action taken by the respondent Bank. It is submitted that the concerned civil court dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner and therefore the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No.16363 of 2014 before this Court. However, as the alternative remedy of filing appeal was available with the petitioner, petitioner sought permission to withdraw the said petition. Accordingly, this Court granted permission to withdraw the same. 6. It is further submitted that thereafter the petitioner filed appeal before the District Court, Junagadh. However, there was delay of 6 months and 21 days in preferring the said appeal. Therefore, petitioner filed separate application being Civil Misc. Application No.24 of 2015. However, by impugned order, the concerned Additional District Judge, Junagadh dismissed the said application. 7. Learned advocate for the petitioner has challenged the said order mainly on the ground that the petitioner initially filed a petition before this Court under the bona fide belief that the order of the civil court can be challenged before this Court. However, when realized, petitioner sought permission to withdraw the said petition with a view to file an appeal and therefore there was a delay in filing the appeal before the District Court. However, when realized, petitioner sought permission to withdraw the said petition with a view to file an appeal and therefore there was a delay in filing the appeal before the District Court. It is submitted that there was no inaction or negligence on the part of the petitioner in preferring the appeal and because of some bona fide belief, petitioner could not file the appeal within the limitation period. It is, therefore, urged that impugned order be set aside and matter be remitted back to the District Court for hearing the appeal on its own merits. 8. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Patel appearing for the respondent Bank has opposed this petition and submitted that when the petitioner has failed to show sufficient cause before the District Court, the District Court has rejected the Misc. Civil Application filed by the petitioner and therefore this Court may not interfere with the said order. 9. This Court has considered the submissions canvassed on behalf of learned advocates appearing for the parties and also considered the material placed on record. It is revealed from the record that against the order dated 30.06.2014 passed by 10th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh in Regular Civil Suit No.38 of 2007, petitioner preferred petition being Special Civil Application No.16363 of 2014 before this Court. The said petition was not maintainable as the petitioner was having alternative remedy of filing appeal before the concerned District Court. Therefore, the said petition came to be withdrawn in January, 2015 and thereafter the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the concerned District Court. Thus, there is delay of approximately 6 months in preferring the said appeal. This Court has gone through the averments made in the petition as well as in the application filed before the District Court for condonation of delay caused in filing the appeal. This Court is of the view that petitioner has shown sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the limitation period and therefore the appeal is required to be heard on its own merits. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 20.11.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Junagadh in Civil Misc. Application No.24 of 2015 is quashed and set aside. The delay of 6 months and 21 days caused in filing appeal against the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.38 of 2007 is accordingly condoned. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 20.11.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Junagadh in Civil Misc. Application No.24 of 2015 is quashed and set aside. The delay of 6 months and 21 days caused in filing appeal against the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.38 of 2007 is accordingly condoned. The Additional District Judge, Junagadh is directed to hear the first appeal filed by the petitioner on its own merits and in accordance with law uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.