Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.
1. In this case the Subordinate Judge has extended the time for the payment of the price of certain lands, in respect of which specific performance had been asked for by way of a conveyance from the defendant to the plaintiff. The only two sections to which he refers as giving him the power are Sections 151 and Order XLI, Rule 33, of the Civil Procedure Code. I do not think that either of the two sections can apply to a case of this sort. In Ramaswami Kone v. Sundara Kone 3 M.L.T. 26 where the decree was practically in the same terms as the present one, this Court held that the Court which passed the decree had no power to extend the time, much less any Appellate Court. A similar decision was arrived at in Moideen Kuppai v. Ponnuswamy Pillai 1 L.W. 882. It is contended for the respondent that, because the original decree was confirmed in appeal, the plaintiff had one month's time from the date of the appellate decree. I am unable to agree with this proposition, because the confirmation by the Appellate Court of the original decree is a confirmation of all its terms, and does not mean that the plaintiff has one month from the date of the confirmation of that decree by the Appellate Court. It is also to be noted that the first Court's decree fixed a particular date before which the money is to be paid. In this case, as is further pointed out, the money was not offered till long after one month from the date of the appellate decree. The respondent relies on Satvaji Balajirao Deshmukh v. Sakharlal Atmaram Shet 26 Ind. Cas. 754 for the position that the confirmation of the original decree by an Appellate Court, as a matter of course, extends the time which is fixed for payment in that decree. If that is the effect of that decision, I am unable to agree and I prefer to follow the decisions of this Court in Ramaswami Kone v. Sundara Kone 3 M.L.T. 26 and Moideen Kuppai v. Ponnuswamy Pillai 26 Ind. Cas. 63. The order of the lower Court is, therefore, reversed and the application for extension of time must be dismissed. The petitioners are entitled to their costs both here and in the lower Court.