JUDGMENT Bomford, J.M. 1. (July 21, 1937)--On the 10th October, 1936, Pneru Lal made an application under the Encumbered Estates Act. It was ordered to be forwarded to the Special Judge the same day. On the 3rd November, 1936, the Appellant applied for a copy of that application, on the basis of which he made an application to the Deputy Commissioner asking for a cancellation of the order u/s 6. His grounds were that Pheru Lal did not mention the names of his three sons who were joint with him and had expressed no intention of separating from his family, giving at the same time the particulars required in the second proviso to Section 4 of the Act. This application was rejected on the ground that the application had been forwarded to the Judge and no objection could in consequence be entertained in the Revenue Court. 2. The view of the Board, however, is that if an application that has prima facie not been duly made has been forwarded to the Judge without any enquiry it is duty of the Collector to make an enquiry into the facts when they are brought to his notice and report if necessary to the Board for action to be taken in revision. 3. It was argued on behalf of Respondent before me that there was prima facie no defect in the application which would justify an enquiry. The applicant stated in Para. 4 that he was not a member of a joint Hindu family and in that case the provisos to Section 4, which apply to a member of the family, do not apply. The application was prima facie in order and rightly forwarded to the Judge. It is suggested that it is open to the Judge to decide whether the application has been duly made. It is however the view of the Board and of some Special Judges, at any rate that the only Court which can decide whether an application has been duly made is the Collector's. It is of course unfortunate, there being no provision in the law for informing the creditors before the application is forwarded, that objections are received late and have to be dealt with by way of revision. But the rule should I think be that if a prima facie, case is made out by the objector enquiry must be made by the Collector. 4. But the rule should I think be that if a prima facie, case is made out by the objector enquiry must be made by the Collector. 4. In the case before me it is not denied that the applicant 1 as sons. It is further a curious fact that in the copy of the application which was issued on the 6th November, 1935, the words in which he repudiates membership of a joint Hindu family are missing. It is obvious that they are an interpolation in the application and Counsel for Respondent knows nothing about the interpolation. He suggests that either they were there when the application was filed, though no doubt ad led to the original draft, in which case the copying department made a mistake or they were added latter possibly under the orders of the Judge. 5. I consider that in all the circumstances Respondent has a prima facie case to answer. I set as de the order u/s 6 passed on 10th October, 1936. I would direct the Collector to personally enquire into the allegation made by the Appellant and to pass a fresh order either forwarding or rejecting the application u/s 4. 6. The costs of the hearings will depend on the result of the enquiry. I allow Rs. 10 pleaders fee. A copy of this order will be sent to the Special Judge for his information. Darling S.M. (July 27, 1937). 7. I agree.