O R D E R Revision petitioner filed the suit for recovery of money, based on a promissory note, against the respondent. At the request of parties, the case was referred to Lok Adalat. Before the Lok Adalat the parties agreed for the suit being decreed as per the plaint and the revision petitioner agreed to receive Rs.10,000/- in full satisfaction of the decree if paid on or before 30-01-2002. On 25-02-2002 respondent filed a petition under Section 148 CPC for extension of time alleging that he offered to pay Rs.10,000/- to the revision petitioner on 30-01-2002 and that the revision petitioner refused to receive the same and produced a draft dated 02-02-2002 for Rs.10,000/-. By the order under revision the trial Court allowed the said petition. Hence this revision by the plaintiff. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that even assuming that the contention of the respondent that he offered to pay the money on 30-01-2002 and that the revision petitioner refused to receive it is true, though in fact it is not true, the trial Court has no jurisdiction to extend time fixed in the award of the Lok Adalat under Section 148 CPC and so the order under revision is liable to be set aside. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent when the case was taken up for hearing. 3. It is unnecessary for me to go into the question whether the respondent in fact offered Rs.10,000/- to the revision petitioner on 30-01-2002 or not because as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner the trial Court has no power to extend the time fixed in the award of a Lok Adalat, by invoking Section 148 CPC, which reads: “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 (not exceeding 30 days in total), even though the period originally fixed or granted may have expired”. 4 As per Section 21(2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, award made by a Lok Adalat is final and binding on the parties. The award in this case is passed by Lok Adalat but not by the Court. The Court did not fix the time for payment in the award. 4 As per Section 21(2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, award made by a Lok Adalat is final and binding on the parties. The award in this case is passed by Lok Adalat but not by the Court. The Court did not fix the time for payment in the award. The parties at their volition fixed the date for payment as 30-01-2002. So respondent should have taken steps to fulfill his obligation on or before that date. Since the Court did not fix the time for payment, Section 148 CPC has no application and so the Court has no power to extend the time fixed in the award by invoking Section 148 CPC and so the trial Court was in error in allowing the petition filed by the respondent. 5. Hence this revision is allowed with costs and I.A.No.214 of 2002 in O.S.No.147 of 1998 stands dismissed with costs. --X--