JUDGMENT Bomford, J.M. 1. (August 3, 1937.) The Appellant file I his application u/s 4 of the Encumbered Estates Act on the 1st April, 1937. The Collector rejected it as time barred and refused to give the applicant the benefit of Clause (4) of Section 4. His case is that he is a money-lender himself and the debts owed to him amount to some Rs. 38,000. On the other hand he was himself indebted to the extent of Rs. 2:3,000. He managed to settle one of his own debts to the amount of Rs. 16,000 by transferring to his creditor a mortgage for that amount which he held himself and he was hoping to settle his other obligations by similar negotiations. His idea that this could be done prevented him from applying under the Act until the period of limitation expired and it was to his surprise that his creditors suddenly broke off negotiations and left him in the lurch with his own debtors applying under the Act, though he assorts that he knew nothing of their having done so until he got a notice from tie Court of the Special Judge after lie had filed his own application. 2. If the story of the Appellant is correct he has been unfortunate, though on the face of it foolish, for it was unreasonable to expect that his debtors would not take advantage of the Act and once they had taken advantage of the Act the value of his debts as bargaining counter would be very greatly reduced. But the word used in the Act is "prevent." That word connotes to my mind some physical disability which actually hinders a man from applying in time. Serious illness would be one excuse which I would accept, absence from India is another, but there was really nothing in the strict sense of the word, and I think the Act should be interpreted strictly, to 'prevent' the Appellant from filing his application in time. He knew all about the Act and should have fixed the date of expiry of the Act as the date by which he had to bring his negotiatoins to a definite close. The presumption after all is that he thought he could do better by private negotiation than by application under the Act and only applied when his hopes were finally disappointed. The presumption after all is that he thought he could do better by private negotiation than by application under the Act and only applied when his hopes were finally disappointed. But this does not mean that he was 'prevented' from applying. 3. Subject to the concurrence of my learned colleague I think that the view taken by the Collector was correct and that the appeal should be dismissed. Darling S.M. (August 9, 1937). 4. I entirely agree.