JUDGMENT Bomford, J.M. 1. [November 9, 1937.] The Appellants in this case live in Darbhanga, Bihar, and have property in the Padrauna Tahsil of the Gorakhpur district. Their predecessor-in-interest borrowed money in 1913 and a suit was filed by the creditor in 1923, which was decided ex-parte against the Appellants. They however secured the cancellation of the decree and on 26th January, 1934, an order was passed in their favour, on account of default on the part of the Plaintiff. He failed to get the suit restored and went to the High Court in appeal. In November, 1936, a third ex parte order was passed, this time in favor of the Plaintiff restoring the suit. This was brought to the notice of the Appellants in March, 1937, and on 22nd April, 1937, they filed an application u/s 4 of the Encumbered Estates Act claiming the benefit of the six months' extension of limitation granted under sub Clause (4). They burdened this application with appeals ad misericordiam and an assertion that being residents of another province they were not acquainted with the new legislation in this Province. The Collector refused to hold that they were "prevented" from applying in time and rejected their application. Now the Board have given the benefit of Clause (4) Section 4 to residents of Rampur, but the present application can be based on the very much stronger ground that the applicants were "prevented" from applying in time because during the whole period of the limitation of the Act there was no debt in respect of which they could apply. 2. This is a case of a debt, which was discharged by the fact that the suit brought by the Plaintiff was dismissed, but has revived by a subsequent order of the High Court. The Act does not seem to have provided for cases of this kind in which a debt has been, so to speak suspended during the currency of the Act but has been revived by an order of the appellate Court, and it is no doubt the nearest accident that the orders of the High Court were passed in this case in such time as to allow the applicants to get notice of the revival of their debt and give them an opportunity to file their application within the period of limitation allowed by law. 3. 3. Of course the applicants could not be allowed to seek the protection of the Act in respect of a new debt and a new claim brought after October, 1936, but this was no new claim and I think myself that it is reasonable to hold that the applicants were "prevented" from applying earlier by the circumstances of the case and the course of the proceedings. I would therefore return the case to the Collector and direct him to admit the application u/s 4 as within time and take action thereon according to law. Darling S.M. [November 11, 1937] 4. I agree.