Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. This revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 13.8.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (for brevity, the Tribunal) vide which the amendment application filed by the claimant-respondents has been allowed at a stage when the case was listed for rebuttal and arguments. The order passed by the Tribunal reads as under:- "The counsel for the respondents has opposed the application on the ground that this application has been filed only to fill up the lacuna. All the evidence has already been led by the petitioners in this behalf. The argument of the counsel seems to be impressive. However, the persual of file reveals that the petitioner who has filed the petition, has not appeared in the witness box. The author of the daily diary Ex.P-1 has also not appeared in the witness box. Thus, the number written in the petition seems to be because of inadvertence and it can very well be taken as a clerical mistake. Furthermore, the evidence of the petitioners can be appreciated as to whether vehicle number HR-51C/7406 was at all involved or not. The amendment sought cannot be said to be malafide. The same, as such, is allowed subject to payment of Rs.300/- as costs." 2. The point sought to be raised before me that the amendment is not justified on the ground of inadvertence and clerical mistake can very well be taken at the time of filing the appeal which is regular remedy available. The provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be availed where the alternative remedy of appeal is available. The Appellate Court would be in a position to re-evaluate the effect of amendment allowed by the impugned order. In Ouseph Mathai and Ors. v. M. Abdul Khadir, 1 (2002)1 S.C.C. 319 their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under:- "It is not denied that the powers conferred upon the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution are extraordinary and discretionary powers as distinguished from ordinary statutory powers. No doubt Article 227 confers a right of superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises the jurisdiction but no corresponding right is conferred upon a litigant to invoke the jurisdiction under the said Article as a matter of right. No doubt Article 227 confers a right of superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises the jurisdiction but no corresponding right is conferred upon a litigant to invoke the jurisdiction under the said Article as a matter of right. In fact power under this Article casts a duty upon the High Court to keep the inferior courts and tribunals within the limits of their authority and that they do not cross the limits, ensuring the performance of duties by such courts and tribunals in accordance with law conferring powers within the ambit of the enactments creating such courts and tribunals. Only wrong decisions may not be a ground for the exercise of jurisdiction under this Article unless the wrong is referable to grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of power by the subordinate courts and tribunals resulting in grave injustice to any party." This Court in Civil Revision No.3924 of 2002, decided on 7.8.2002 also took this view. 3 For the reasons stated above, the revision petition is dismissed because the remedy of appeal is available to the petitioners. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to raise all the points at the time of appeal, if such an eventuality arises.