Judgment :- This is a peculiar case, where in a suit for specific performance, while the trial Court in its decree provided that the petitioner should deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.23,999/- on or before 15.06.1986 into the Court to the credit of the suit, whereafter the respondents were bound to execute the necessary sale deed in favour of the petitioner, the appellate Court while dismissing the first appeal in its decree dated 27.02.1990 subsequently provided as under with regard to the payment of sale consideration: 2. The petitioner is stated to have deposited the balance sale consideration on 30.03.1990. The petitioner filed the Execution Petition on 13.06.1990 seeking to execute the decree. By the order impugned in this revision, the execution Court on finding that the petitioner did not comply with the conditions imposed by the appellate Court dismissed the petitioner's execution petition. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that when the petitioner has substantially complied with the condition imposed in regard to the payment of the balance sale consideration by depositing the amount instead of paying it to the respondents on 30.03.1990 itself, the Court below ought not to have rejected the execution sought for. I am unable to accept the stand of the petitioner. In the first instance, it will have to be stated that the decree granted by the trial Court got merged with the appellate Court decree when the appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. 4.In the said circumstances, the decree as granted by the appellate Court will have to be strictly complied with when a party seeks for execution. The relief granted in the said decree in which when the appellate Court having specifically provided that the balance sale consideration should be paid by the petitioner to the respondents and then seek for getting the sale deed executed in his favour within three months i.e. on or before 27.05.1990, it cannot be held that by depositing the balance sale consideration on 30.03.1990 into the Court, the petitioner had complied with the stipulations contained in the decree. In fact, the execution petition itself is said to have been filed only on 30.06.1990 i.e. long after 27.05.1990. In fact, the execution petition itself is said to have been filed only on 30.06.1990 i.e. long after 27.05.1990. Therefore, the petitioner has miserably failed to strictly follow the prescriptions contained in the decree dated 27.02.1990 of the first appellate Court wherein it was specifically provided that the petitioner should not only make the payment of balance sale consideration directly to the respondents but should have taken steps for getting the sale deed executed in his favour on or before 27.05.1990. 5.Thus in all respects, the petitioner failed to comply with the stipulations contained in the decree granted in his favour and in such circumstances, I am unable to find any illegality or irregularity in the order of the Court below while rejecting the petitioner's execution petition. This revision petition therefore fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P is dismissed.