Anil Kumar, J.:- 1. By means of present revision, the order dated 22.8.2001 passed by Vth Additional District Judge, Hardoi in Execution Case No. 3 of 1991, Manohar Lal Vs. State of U.P. and others has been challenged. 2. Fact in brief of the present revision are that respondent no. 1 (Manohar Lal) had initially filed a claim petition before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal , Lucknow which was registered as Claim Petition No. 194(f)/III/79, Manohar Lal Vs. State of U.P. and others . 3. The said claim petition was allowed in part by order dated 11.9.1986 and the following order was passed by the Tribunal :- "1. Opposite parties no. 2 and 3 are directed to pay the sum of Rs. 270/- in the G.P.F. Account of the petitioner. 2. Opposite parties 2 and 3 are directed to pay the sum of Rs. 60/- relating to suspense account to the petitioner. 3. Opposite parties 1,4 and 5 shall ensure payment of the petitioners salary for the period from 1.10.1976 to 15.10.1976 without further delay. 4. Opposite parties 1,4, &5 are directed to take action under Rule 49-A(2) of the Civil Service( Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules , read with Fundamental Rules 54B of the Financial Hand Book, Parts II to IV , in so far as the payment of the petitioner's salary from 1.11.1976 to 10.1.1977, when he was in jail, is concerned. 5. Opposite parties1,4, and 5 are directed to sanction the increment due to the petitioner on 1.4.1976 w.e.f. That date and also fix his pay in the revised pay scale. All arrears arising therefrom shall be paid to the petitioner within three months from the date of this order, whererafter the petitioner shall be entitled to simple interest @ 12% per annum on the amount due. 6. Opposite parties 1 ,4 and 5 are directed to sanction such leave as may be admissible to the petitioner for the period from 24.6.1978 to 21.5.1979 on receipt of application from him so that there may be no break in his service." 4. Thereafter Manohar Lal had filed a execution case for executing the order dated 11.9.1986 passed by the Tribunal in the Court of Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi which was numbered as Execution Case No. 3 of 1991. 5. Thereafter Manohar Lal had filed a execution case for executing the order dated 11.9.1986 passed by the Tribunal in the Court of Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi which was numbered as Execution Case No. 3 of 1991. 5. In the said execution case on behalf of the revisionist, an objection was filed under 47 of the C.P.C. On 10.4.1992. After hearing the parties, court below by order dated 22.8.2001 had rejected/dismissed the said objection. 6. Order dated 22.8.2001passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi is challenged before this Court by way of present revision. 7. Heard Sri P.K. Trivedi learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record. Matter is taken in the revised list . None appeared on behalf of the respondent. 8. Admittedly, in the present case , order dated 11.9.1986 passed by the U.P. Public Service Tribunal, in Claim Petition No. 194(F) /III/79 , Manohar Lal Vs. State of U.P. and others was not challenged by the respondent as such the same had attained finality . 9. Further when Sri Manohar Lal was not able to get any fruit of the order dated 11.9.1986 passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal then he filed a execution case in the court of Vth Additional Sessions Judge , Hardoi ( Execution case no. 3 of 1991, Manohar Lal Vs. State of U.P. and others) and in the said execution case objection was filed by the revisionist which was rejected by the court below vide order dated 22.8.2001. 10. Moreover, by passing the 22.8.2001 the executing Court had given the categorical finding of fact that the revisionist, who was respondent in the execution case, with oblique motive and purpose on one or other pretext had linger on the matter for more than 14 years in order to not to enable them to comply the order passed by the Tribunal dated 11.9.1986 in a claim petition filed by Manohar Lal without any reasonable justification or reasons. 11. In addition to above said fact the executing court had further held that Manohar Lal in execution matter had dropped the claim in respect of G.P.F. amounting to Rs. 270/- and towards suspense account amounting to Rs. 60/- and as a result of which in pursuance to the order passed by the Tribunal , he was entitled Rs. 11. In addition to above said fact the executing court had further held that Manohar Lal in execution matter had dropped the claim in respect of G.P.F. amounting to Rs. 270/- and towards suspense account amounting to Rs. 60/- and as a result of which in pursuance to the order passed by the Tribunal , he was entitled Rs. 37,627.10 paisa but as he had not claimed the amount towards G.P.G. And suspense account so he claimed for a sum of Rs. 37,297.10 paisa. Accordingly the said amount was ordered to be paid by executing court by order dated 22.8.2001. 12. Learned counsel for the revisionist is not able to point out any reasons or material as to under what circumstances the order dated 22.8.2001 passed by the executing court which is based on findings of fact , is contrary to facts or perverse in nature. 13. It is well settled proposition of law that this Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction in deciding the revision can set aside the findings of the fact as recorded by the court below only when the same is contrary to record and perverse in nature. 14. In the case of Syed Yakoob versus K.S. Radhakrishnan & others ( 1964(5) SCR 64 ) the Supreme Court has held as follows: "finding of fact cannot be challenged in a proceeding on the ground that the relevant and material evidence was in sufficient to sustain the finding and that adequate or sufficiency of evidence or an inference of fact to be drawn from the evidence or finding of fact are entirely within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal." 15. In the case of State of West Bengal versus A.K. Shaw ( AIR 1990 SC 2205 ), the Supreme Court has observed:- that of quasi judicial Tribunal had appreciated the evidence on record and recorded the findings of fact, those findings of fact would be binding on the High Court. By the process of Judicial review, the High Court cannot appreciate the evidence and record its own findings of fact. 16. For the forgoing reasons, the present revision filed by the revisionist lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 17. No order as to costs.