Judgment 1. The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 22.9.2005 passed by the learned Executing Court whereby the objections filed by the petitioner that the Insurance Company cannot recover the amount paid by the Insurance Company to the claimant but instead is required to file a civil suit for the recovery of the claimed amount were dismissed. 2. Vide award dated 12.6.2001, the claimants were awarded a sum of Rs.2.45,000/- in a claim petition filed under Sec.166 of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In para No.19 of the award, the Insurance company was found entitled to recover the amount from Vijay Kumar driver and Parshottam owner. Said award passed by the learned motor Accident Claims Tribunal has attained finality. In the execution filed by the Insurance Company to recover the amount of compensation from the petitioner who is owner of the vehicle, the objection was filed that the claim is not executable and the Insurance Company should file regular civil suit. 3. The learned Executing Court dismissed the objections on the ground that the award which is sought to be executed, the petitioner was duly represented and that they are without any merit. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of HON BLE Supreme Court in National Insurance corporation Limited Vs. Kanti Devi (Mrs.) and others (2005) 5 Supreme Court cases 789 wherein matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in view of the principles enunciated in National insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singhand others (2004) 3 Supreme court Cases 297 to find out whether the insured has not taken adequate care to verify the genuineness of driving licence. 5. In the present case, the award given by the Motor Accident claims Tribunal has attained finality. The findings recorded therein cannot be disputed by the petitioner in the execution arising out of the said award which has attained finality. The judgment relied upon is, in fact, arises out of the proceedings in appeal. In appeal, the Appellate court is entitled to pass the orders which may be found necessary in the facts of a case but once the award has attained finality, it is not open to the petitioner to dispute the findings recorded therein in execution. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order which may warrant interference by this Court. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order which may warrant interference by this Court. Dismissed.