JUDGMENT Darling, S.M. 1. (July 29, 1937).--On the 15th March, 1937, Lala Kunwar Sen, an Agarwal Vaish of Landhaura, and other members of his family presented an application u/s 4 of the Encumbered Estates Act before the Collector of Saharanpur: on the following day without assigning any reasons for accepting the application, which was 41/2 months beyond limitation, the Collector passed a brief order of four words,--"the application is entertained." On the same day without making an enquiry of any kind the Collector passed an order u/s 6 of the Act directing that the application be forwarded to the Special Judge: this latter order consists of the single word "forwarded". Now one set of creditors comes to the Board in appeal u/s 45 of the Encumbered Estates Act against the order of the Collector accepting the application u/s 4. As the creditors were not parties to the proceedings before the Collector, the applicants should have come, not by May of appeal u/s 45, but by way of revision u/s 46. 2. The limitation for presenting applications u/s 4 of the Encumbered Estates Act ran out on the last day of October, 1936. Under Clause (4) of that section a landlord may present his application within six months of this date: in that case he must satisfy the Collector that he had been prevented by sufficient cause from applying within tie period prescribed: it is then within the discretion of the Collector to accept the application. The question is whether the Collector has exercised that discretion correctly. 3. The applicant Lala Kunwar Sen, pleads that he was trying to avoid proceedings under the Encumbered Estates Act by coming to terms with his creditors through a private settlement, that he was put off by the creditors from day to day, and that now he has no alternative but to seek the protection of the Act. The applicant also pleaded that he was advanced in years, that he had been continuously ill, and that there was no other member of the joint family who is capable of looking after his affairs. In support of these allegations there is no evidence of any kind. The applicant also pleaded that he was advanced in years, that he had been continuously ill, and that there was no other member of the joint family who is capable of looking after his affairs. In support of these allegations there is no evidence of any kind. If this application had been presented in the first week of November with evidence to show that it had been delayed through negotiations with the creditors, then perhaps it might have been accepted: but beyond the plea of old age and illness there is no adequate reason to explain the delay, not of a few days, or ever of a week or two, but of 41/2 months; this is not an application which should have been accepted under the special provisions of Clause (4) of Section 4. Consequently in the exercise of the Board's powers in revision I would reject the application and would cancel:he order passed by the Collector u/s 6. A copy of the present order should be sent by the Collector to the Special Judge for information and guidance. Parties can bear their own costs of these proceedings. Bomford J.M. (August 8, 1937). I agree.