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 re