JUDGMENT Bomford, J.M. 1. [November 1, 1937]- The Appellant filed his application u/s 4 of the Encumbered Estates Act on the 17th April, 1937. He explained the great lelay in making the application by illness and the Assistant Collector called for a medical certificate. 2. The Appellant first of all produced a certificate from the son of a Vaid that his father has been treating the Appellant in October and November, 1936. This not being considered sufficient, the Appellant produced a certificate from a qualified doctor to the effect that his lungs were affected and were probably tubercular. The Assistant Collector then without recording any reasons or considering the case with any care passed the order in Vernacular that the application was accepted and should be sent to the Special Judge. That order was passed on the 22nd April, 1937, and with commendable promptitude one of the creditors put in his application on the 27th April, 1937, asking the Assistant Collector to review his order. 3. The Assistant Collector then passed the order which the ought to have passed in the first instance after considering whether the Appellant was prevented from applying in time. 4. I see no reason myself to doubt the medical certificates which were presented but neither certificate ever stated that the applicant was prevented from attending to business by his illness. There is evidence that although he deferred presenting his application till the last fortnight in March, he was attending to business in November and December last and it is also admitted that he only filed his application after his creditors had lodged their suit. 5. The benefit of Sub-clause (4) of Section 4 is intended for persons who have been physically incapacitated from filing their applications or have the excuse of ignorance due to non-residence in the Province. It is not intended for persons who parley with their creditors and then find that limitation has expired. 6. One point urged is that the Assistant Collector had no power to review his order. Since the first of January, 1937, the whole of the Code of CPC has been made applicable to all proceedings under the Encumbered Estates Act. It is not intended for persons who parley with their creditors and then find that limitation has expired. 6. One point urged is that the Assistant Collector had no power to review his order. Since the first of January, 1937, the whole of the Code of CPC has been made applicable to all proceedings under the Encumbered Estates Act. The Board's orders laying down that the proper course is for a reference in revision if the Assistant Collector finds that he passed an order u/s 6 wrongly were passed in cases in which orders were passed before that date, though it is true that in the case referred to by the Appellant reported in Bhola Nath v. Roshan Singh, (1937) 18 U.D. 244 the order of the Collector refusing to interfere was passed in April, 1937. 7. There is no doubt that since the application of the Code of CPC to all proceedings under the Act Courts have the power to review. 8. Whether they are entitled to review an order passed by mistake u/s 6 is however a point that requires some consideration by the Court itself. 9. The applicant for review in this case was no party to the order, so he cannot produce in evidence any new and important matter which was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time that the order was passed. Nor if the Court has blundered in forwarding an application without suitable enquiry can it be said that there was a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, while the Courts have held that the clause "other sufficient reason" applies to reasons of the same kind as those already mentioned. It seems to me that the person that could apply in review is the debtor whose application has been rejected for wrong reasons and not the creditor who was never before the Court when the order was passed. The point however is of little importance in the present case as the Assistant Collector has said that his order may be taken if necessary as a reference in revision. 10. I would take it accordingly and in exercise of the Board's powers of revision cancel the order passed u/s 6 on 22nd April, 1937. The applicant in revision, as I would prefer to regard the Respondent, will get his costs and Rs. 10. I would take it accordingly and in exercise of the Board's powers of revision cancel the order passed u/s 6 on 22nd April, 1937. The applicant in revision, as I would prefer to regard the Respondent, will get his costs and Rs. 10 pleader's fee. A copy of this order will be sent by the Collector to the Special Judge. Darling S.M. [November 2, 1937.] 11. I agree.