ORDER : The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. They have no complaint about any audio and visual connectivity. This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein, the order dated 22.04.2013 passed by the District Judge-I-cum-Presiding Officer, MACT, Jamtara in MACT Case No. 01 of 2010, whereby and whereunder, a petition filed under Order 6 Rule XVII dated 06.03.2013 on behalf of the respondent no.2 seeking therein amendment to the written statement to the effect that death of one Munshi Marandi was not caused by the dumper bearing registration no.HR 26-6228. Besides, the deceased was driving his motorcycle without any driving license and without helmet and the said motorcycle had also no valid papers for running on road but the same has been rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition is that:- The respondent nos.1 to 6 filed an application under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation on the ground of death of husband of respondent no.1, namely, Munshi Marandi who succumbed to an injury in a motor accident occurred while he was driving motorcycle which was hit by dumper bearing registration no. HR 26-6228 on 30.11.2009 at village Basnali, Jamtara. The Tribunal has issued notice to the petitioner who happens to be the owner of the dumper bearing no. HR 26-6228 and also issued notice to the respondent no.7, Branch Manager of Oriental Insurance Company, Deoghar Branch as the said dumper is insured with the Oriental Insurance Company, Deoghar Branch. The petitioner herein has filed written statement taking the plea that the respondent no.2 is the owner and the respondent no.3 is the driver of dumper bearing no. HR 26-6228, which reads as hereunder:- (1) “That the Respondent no.2 is the owner and Respondent no.3 is the driver of Dumper bearing no.HR 26-6228 (2) That this MACT Case is filed claiming death compensation by the claimants arising out of accident occurred on 30/11/2009, while Munshi Marandi was dashed by Dumpher bearing Regd. No.HR 26-6228 (3) That the Dumpher bearing Regd. No.HR 26-6228 was insured by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Deoghar Branch having Policy No.332402/31/2009/2971 effective from 27/02/2009 to 26/02/2010. No.HR 26-6228 (3) That the Dumpher bearing Regd. No.HR 26-6228 was insured by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Deoghar Branch having Policy No.332402/31/2009/2971 effective from 27/02/2009 to 26/02/2010. (4) That on the date of Accident, i.e., on 30/11/2009, the vehicle was insured and hence, the Oriental Insurance Co. Limited is liable to compensate the claimants. (5) That the Original Insurance Certificate is attached herewith. (6) That the driver Vijay Yadav has also a valid driving License on the date of Accident Xerox copy of the Driving License is attached. (7) That in view of the facts, these respondents are not liable to compensate the claimants. It is, therefore, submitted that the proposed award be awarded against the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and these respondents may be exonerated from their liability and for this act of kindness, the Respondents shall ever pray.” The written statement has also been field by the Oriental Insurance Company, wherefrom, it is evident that the vehicle in question which involved in the accident was dumper bearing registration no. HR 26-6228 which was commercial vehicle and for the commercial vehicle, valid and effective insurance policy particular valid and effective route permit issued by the competent authority as well as valid and effective driving license are the mandatory requirement of law and plying of vehicle without permit is infraction and if owner of the offending vehicle violates the terms and conditions of the policy under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as such, the respondent is not liable to make any payment of compensation to the claimants. It is further evident by referring to F.I.R. of Jamtara P.S. Case No.195 of 2009 dated 12.01.2009 lodged by Parsan Marandi brother of the deceased stating inter-alia therein that his brother Munshi Marandi died in road accident by a dumper while his brother was lying died on road with his Rajdoot Motor Cycle No.WNJ-4247. The petitioner, herein, has filed an application for amendment in written statement praying therein to allow him to make necessary amendment in the written statement filed to the effect which reads as hereunder:- “The death of Munshi Marandi was not caused by Dumper No. HR 26-6228. The petitioner, herein, has filed an application for amendment in written statement praying therein to allow him to make necessary amendment in the written statement filed to the effect which reads as hereunder:- “The death of Munshi Marandi was not caused by Dumper No. HR 26-6228. Besides, the deceased was driving his motorcycle without any Driving License and without helmet and the said Motorcycle had also no valid papers for running on road.” The rejoinder to the aforesaid petition was filed by the claimants stating inter-alia therein that the amendment sought for in the written statement is contradictory to his assertion and admission made in his written statement, where the petitioner has admitted that on 30.11.2009, the deceased Munshi Marandi was dashed by Dumper bearing registration no. HR 26-6228. The Tribunal after appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the factual aspect has passed the order on 22.04.2013 by holding that the respondent nos.2 and 3, namely, Naval Kishore Yadav and Vijay Yadav have filed joint written statement on 30.07.2010. At present, four witnesses on behalf of the claimants were already examined and the case is pending for evidence and at that belated stage, the amendment petition has been filed for amendment in his written statement. The Tribunal, on perusal of paragraph-2 of written statement of respondent nos.2 and 3 dated 30.07.2010 has found that this MACT case is filed claiming death compensation by the claimants arising out of accident occurred on 30.11.2009, while Munshi Marandi was dashed by dumper bearing registration no. HR 26-6228. It has further been considered that the respondent nos.2 and 3 has not specifically denied in the said paragraph that the deceased Munshi Marandi was not dashed with the dumper bearing registration no. HR 26-6228 but in the proposed amendment, the respondent no.2 wants to change his version. Accordingly, taking into consideration the position of law, the admission made in plaint or written statement cannot be withdrawn subsequently by amendment and since the respondent no.2 already admitted a fact, therefore, he cannot be allowed to retract back from his admission. The aforesaid order has been questioned in this petition. 3. Mr. Accordingly, taking into consideration the position of law, the admission made in plaint or written statement cannot be withdrawn subsequently by amendment and since the respondent no.2 already admitted a fact, therefore, he cannot be allowed to retract back from his admission. The aforesaid order has been questioned in this petition. 3. Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted in his defence by referring to the statement made in the written statement that there is no specific admission on his part about causing of accident by dumper bearing registration no. HR 26-6228. It has been submitted that the Tribunal has come to wrong conclusion by looking to the statement made at paragraph-2 of the written statement. According to him, the statement made at paragraph-2 is nothing but the reiteration of the prayer of the claimants and as such, it cannot be said that the statement made therein is an admission about causing of accident by dumper bearing registration no. HR 26-6228. In view thereof, it is not a question of retracting back of admission rather what has been proposed in the written statement seeking amendment in the earlier written statement which is totally a new fact about the denial of the claim of involvement of the aforesaid vehicle in the accident. 4. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted by referring to the written statement filed by the owner of the vehicle that the statement made at paragraph-2 is to be read out along with other statement made in the subsequent paragraphs thereof and if it would be read out in entirety, it would be evident that the fact about involvement of the vehicle being HR 266228 has not been denied and therefore, in absence of any specific denial, it will amount to admission but in order to cover up, the amendment has been sought for by filing an amendment petition showing no involvement of the said vehicle. 5. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the fact in entirety and considering the position of law that once there is an admission, there cannot be change in the version as because, it is the settled position of law that once there is an admission in the written statement, there cannot be any resilement from the same. 6. 5. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the fact in entirety and considering the position of law that once there is an admission, there cannot be change in the version as because, it is the settled position of law that once there is an admission in the written statement, there cannot be any resilement from the same. 6. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties, appreciated their arguments and gone through the material available on record as also the finding recorded in the impugned order. 7. At the outset, it requires to refer herein that this Court has issued notice upon the claimants but as would appear from the order dated 09.05.2019 that the service of notice has been found to be validly served but none chosen to appear in this case. 8. This Court, before going through the legality and propriety of the impugned order, deem it fit and proper to refer the settled position of law in an application filed under Order 6 Rule XVII in a case where the fact has been admitted but subsequent thereto, amendment is being sought by making reference of totally contradictory view. The Hon’ble Apex Court in such situation has laid down the principle as has been referred in the judgment rendered in the case of Ram Niranjan Kajaria Vrs. Sheo Prakash Kajaria & Ors., reported in (2015) 10 SCC 203 [: 2015(4) JLJR (SC) 185, wherein, it has been laid down that the party cannot be permitted to wholly withdraw the admission in the pleadings as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nagindas Ramdas Vrs. Dalpatram Ichharam, reported in (1974) 1 SCC 242 , for ready reference paragraph-27 is being quoted hereinbelow:- “27. From a conspectus of the cases cited at the bar, the principle that emerges is, that if at the time of the passing of the decree, there was some material before the Court, on the basis of which, the Court could be prima facie satisfied, about the existence of a statutory ground for eviction, it will be presumed that the Court was so satisfied and the decree for eviction though apparently passed on the basis of a compromise, would be valid. Such material may take the shape either of evidence recorded or produced in the case, or, it may partly or wholly be in the shape of an express or implied admission made in the compromise agreement, itself. Admissions, if true and clear, are by far the best proof of the facts admitted. Admissions in pleadings or judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.” It has been laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Ram Niranjan Kajaria Vrs. Sheo Prakash Kajaria & Ors (supra) that however, the admission can be clarified or explained by way of amendment and the basis of admission can be attacked in substantive proceedings but there cannot be any resilement from the admission already made. 9. This Court in order to assess the factual aspect in the case at hand has gone across the written statement filed on behalf of the petitioner as has been annexed as annexure-1 to the petition as referred and quoted hereinabove. However, at paragraph-2, it has been stated that this MACT case is filed claiming death compensation by the claimants arising out of accident occurred on 30.11.2009, while Munshi Marandi was dashed by dumper bearing registration no. HR 26-6228. It is the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the statement made at paragraph-2 cannot be said to be an admission about the involvement of the aforesaid vehicle in the accident but the written statement it is to be taken in entirety. If the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner would be accepted that paragraph-2 is the prayer, then what is the necessity of making statement about insurance coverage of the vehicle in question and the issue of valid driving license of the driver, namely Vijay Yadav, as has been stated at paragraphs 3 and 4 of the aforesaid written statement. It is further evident that written statement is to be filed in defence by the defendant taking the specific plea about the denial of the claim but this Court has perused from the statement made in the written statement that there is no specific denial about non-involvement of the vehicle in question rather from taking the statement made in the written statement in entirety, it would be evident that vehicle in question even according to the petitioner involved in the said accident. The petitioner has filed an amendment petition for making statement in the written statement to the effect that the death of Munshi Marandi was not caused by the dumper bearing registration no. HR 26-6228. Besides, the deceased was driving his motorcycle without any driving license and without helmet and the said motorcycle had also no valid papers for running on road. The aforesaid amendment has sought to be incorporated in the written statement already filed about non-involvement of the vehicle in question in the accident, cannot be allowed to be inserted since statement made by the petitioner in the written statement filed, it is evident thereof that the involvement of vehicle in question in the accident has been admitted but the statement made in the application for amendment of the written statement wherein the involvement of vehicle has been denied, as such, the fact is that in the written statemen, there is admission on the part of the writ petitioner about involvement of the vehicle wherein resiling from the said admission amendment has been filed. The admission made in the pleading cannot be resiled as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court as referred hereinabove. 10. In view thereof and applying the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case as has been referred hereinabove, there cannot be an amendment resiling the statement already made in the written statement. 11. The learned Court below after taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter has come to finding to that effect by rejecting the amendment petition. 12. It is the settled position of law that in a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the error apparent on the face of the order is to be seen, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty Vrs. 12. It is the settled position of law that in a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the error apparent on the face of the order is to be seen, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty Vrs. Rajendra Shankar Patii, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 wherein, it has been laid down that regarding the scope of Article 227 which relates to the supervisory powers of the High Courts and by taking aid of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Full Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. Vrs. Sukumar Mukherjee, reported in AIR 1951 Calcutta 193, wherein it has been laid down that Article 227 of the Constitution of India does not vest the High Court with limit less power which may be exercised at the court’s discretion to remove the hardship of particular decisions. The power of superintendence confers power of a known and well recognized character and should be exercised on those judicial principles which give it its character. In general words, the High Court’s power of superintendence is a power to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of the authority, to see that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner. The power of superintendence is not to be exercised unless there has been; 1. An unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, not vested in a court or tribunal; or 2. gross abuse of jurisdiction; or 3. an unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in courts or tribunals. Further, in the aforesaid judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court has taken aid of a judgment rendered in the case of Mani Nariman Daruwala Vrs. Phiroz N. Bhatena, reported in (1991) 3 SCC 141 , wherein, it has been laid down that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court can set aside or reverse finding of an inferior court or tribunal only in a case where there is no evidence or where no reasonable person could possibly have come to the conclusion which the court or tribunal has come to. The Hon’ble Apex Court has made it clear that except to this limited extent the High court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the finding of facts. The Hon’ble Apex Court has made it clear that except to this limited extent the High court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the finding of facts. Further, the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani Vrs. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 576 , it has been laid down that the High Court under Article 227 cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. Its exercise must be restricted to grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law and justice. It has been laid down at paragraph 47 of the aforesaid judgment that the jurisdiction under Article 227 is not original nor is it appealable. This jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 is for both administrative and judicial superintendence. Therefore, the powers conferred under Article 226 and 227 are separate and distinct and operate in different fields. Another distinction between these two jurisdictions is that under Article 226 the High Court normal annuls or quashes an order or proceedings but in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court, apart from annulling the proceeding, can also substitute the impugned order by the order which the inferior tribunal should have made. It has further been laid down regarding the powers to be exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence, can interfere in order only to keep the tribunals and courts subordinate to it within the bounds of its authority, in order to ensure that law is followed by such tribunals and courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested with them and by not declining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them. Apart from that, High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the tribunals and courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other words the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised. 13. This Court after considering the scope of petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is of the view that no error has been committed by the Court below. 14. This Court before parting with the order, is of the view that since the MACT case is of the year 2010 and now we are in 2021, therefore, the Tribunal, is directed to dispose of the case within the period of six months’ from the date of receipt of copy of the order taking into consideration the object and intent of Motor Vehicles Act which is the beneficial legislation. 15. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed. 16. Interim order stands vacated. 17. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.