( 1 ) IN this appeal, the Honble Supreme Court had on 11-8-1997 passed the following order :-"the respondents, however, are entitled to their costs throughout. We, therefore, direct that the appeal shall stand restored if the appellants pay to the respondents a sum of Rs. 10,000. 00 as costs throughout. This amount shall be paid within a period of four weeks from today, failing which the order dated 30-6-1992 shall stand confirmed. " (Emphasis supplied) ( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY the time fixed by the Honble Supreme Court expired on 8-9-1997. ( 3 ) IT is again admitted that the money was not paid within that time. It is alleged that the money was tendered by the appellant. But that has been denied on oath by the respondents. There is no such evidence to believe the appellant and disbelieve the respondents on this point. ( 4 ) IT is said that the money was sent by the Money Order. The report of the Postman is dated 9-9-1997 that the payee could not not contacted as they were not available. The money was then returned to the sender. Mr. B. B. Paul learned counsel for the appellant states that money has not been received back by his client. ( 5 ) THE respondents deny that at any time they refused to accept the money ever tendered by the postman to them. Therefore the position stands that the money has not been paid or tendered within the time prescribed by the Honble Supreme Court. ( 6 ) MEANWHILE, it is relevant to note that one of the respondent Saifuddin died in the year 1994 (4-11-1994 ). Therefore, the question of refusal by him of the money tendered to him, does not arise. ( 7 ) ON the application of the appellant, the Court passed an order dated 24-10-1997 that without prejudice to the opposite party, the money might be deposited with the Registry of this Court. Accordingly, it was done on 25-10-1997. ( 8 ) THE position now comes to this that the money has not been tendered or deposited within the time prescribed by the Honble Supreme Court. Therefore, the order quoted above passed by the Honble Supreme Court, becomes operative. Accordingly, it was done on 25-10-1997. ( 8 ) THE position now comes to this that the money has not been tendered or deposited within the time prescribed by the Honble Supreme Court. Therefore, the order quoted above passed by the Honble Supreme Court, becomes operative. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel drew our attention to the provisions of Section 148 of the C. P. C. which runs as follows :-"where any period is fixed or granted by the Court for the doing of any act prescribed or allowed by this Code, the Court, may, in its discretion, from time to time, enlarge such period, even though the period originally fixed or granted may have expired. " (Emphasis supplied)The word court has been used twice, it means that the Court which passed an order and fixed a date for a particular act and not any other Court much less the sub-ordinate Court. (Emphasis supplied) ( 10 ) WITHOUT doubt, this Court is sub-ordinate to the Honble Supreme Court. Therefore, it does not have power to extend the time. Under these circumstances, we refuse to accept the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The prayer is accordingly rejected. ( 11 ) THE appellant may, however, approach the Honble Supreme Court for further clarification of the order and extension of time, if he so chooses or is so advised. ( 12 ) WITH these observations and in view of the fact that the order of the Honble Supreme Court has not been complied with within the time prescribed by the appellant, the appeal as per the apex Courts order, stands dismissed. The record may be consigned. Appeal dismissed. .