JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - Plaintiffs have filed this revision against the order of the trial Court refusing their petition under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC (in short, the "C.P.C.") for amendment. 2. The suit was primarily one for partition along with certain other reliefs. Paragraph-4(a) of the prayer portion of the plaint reads as follows: "4(a). Directing the defendant to deliver possession of the suit huller-cum-sheller rice mill in the same sound condition on the date of when it was entrusted to the defendant to run the same on behalf of the plaintiff in his capacity as manager or in the alternative, direct the defendant to perform his part of contract in purchasing the same from the plaintiff under proper and valid." The defendant in paragraph-13 of his written statement stated : "13. That as per the agreement to sell dated 19.7.1985 the defendant was always ready with money and willing to purchase the interest of the plaintiff in the land and the mill as per agreement and was also expressing his readiness and willingness from time to time both orally and also in writing. The defendant is now also ready and willing to specifically pay for the contract dated 19.7.1985 and will pay the balance consideration before the Sub-Registrar on execution of the sale deed as per the contract as and when directed by the Court. The plaintiff has also prayed the same relief of specific performance of the contract in para 4 A' of the prayer in the suit. So the Defendant prays for passing a part Decree of specific performance of contract dated 19.7.1985". After evidence in the case was adduced and the matter was posted for hearing arguments, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC for deleting the alternative prayer contained in paragraph 4(a) to the following effect : ".......or in the alternative, direct the defendant to perform his part of contract in purchasing the same from the plaintiff under proper and valid sale deed to be executed in favour of the plaintiff." The prayer for amendment was resisted by the defendant. It was contended that the plaintiffs should not be allowed to withdraw the alternative prayer at the belated stage as a valuable right had already accrued to the defendant. It was contended that the plaintiffs should not be allowed to withdraw the alternative prayer at the belated stage as a valuable right had already accrued to the defendant. It was further claimed that the defendant would not be in a position to claim specific performance of contract at present, as such a right would be barred by limitation. 3. The trial Court rejected the prayer for amendment mainly on the ground that the petition for amendment had been filed at a belated stage when the case had been posted for argument and if such a prayer would be allowed, the defendant would be left with no choice but to file separate suit for specific performance or file a counter claim and as such the litigation is likely to drag on for longer period. The trial Court also observed that claim for specific performance by the defendant would be time-barred and as such defendant would be highly prejudiced if the proposed amendment seeking for withdrawing the alternative prayer would be allowed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-petitioners contended that the proposed amendment would not alter the nature of the suit and plaintiffs only wanted deletion of the alternative prayer contained in paragraph- 4(a) of the prayer portion and allowing such amendment would not change the nature of the suit. It is further submitted that keeping in view the provisions contained in Order 23, Rule 1, C.P.C., the plaintiffs have the absolute right of abandoning any claim or portion of a claim at any time. The learned counsel for the defendant-opposite party has submitted that though ordinarily amendment can be allowed at any stage, where such amendment causes irreparable injury to the other side, it should not be allowed. It has been further submitted that though Order 23. Rule 1, C.P.C. gives the right to a plaintiff to withdraw any claim or part of the claim, such right is not absolute and where by such withdrawal of a claim or part of the claim, the defendant is likely to be prejudiced, the Court may not permit withdrawal even under Order 23, Rule 1, C.P.C. The rival contentions of the parties require careful consideration. 5. As observed by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Hulas Rai Baij Nath Vs. Firm K.B. Bass and Co. 5. As observed by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Hulas Rai Baij Nath Vs. Firm K.B. Bass and Co. a party has the absolute right to withdraw a part of the claim at any time. However there are certain well-recognised exceptions to such accepted right of a party to withdraw a part of the claim or any claim. Some of the exceptions to the general principle have been noticed in the decision of the Supreme Court reported in R. Ramamurthi Iyer Vs. Raja V. Rajeswara Rao. Following the decisions of the Supreme Court and after referring to several other decisions, it has been observed by the Patna High Court in the decision reported in Basudeb Narayan Singh and Others Vs. Shesh Narayan Singh and Others, : "12. The principles which can be deduced out of the cases aforesaid are clearly the following : (1) The plaintiff under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order 23 of the Code has a right to withdraw a suit at any stage; (2) that such a right of the plaintiff is limited to the extent that it does not result in defeating a right which has already vested in the defendant, such a right may have become vested in the defendant either on account of compromise or a concession or a decree or an award or similar circumstances; (3) that in a partition suit every defendant is virtually in the position of a plaintiff, his claim being founded on a claim similar to that of the plaintiff; and (4) that Order 23, Rule 1, Sub-rule (1) of the Code applies even to a partition suit, subject to the aforesaid limitation." 6. Relying upon the aforesaid principles, the learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that in the present case, a suit for partition had been filed and that it must be taken that the defendant was also a plaintiff and as such, permission for withdrawal cannot be given and consequently, the amendment deleting the alternative prayer contained in paragraph-4(a) has been rightly rejected. Though in the first flush the aforesaid submission appears to be attractive, on deeper analysis, such contention cannot be accepted. In the present case, though the suit is for partition, the alternative prayer contained in paragraph-4(a) was in the nature of a prayer for specific performance of contract. Though in the first flush the aforesaid submission appears to be attractive, on deeper analysis, such contention cannot be accepted. In the present case, though the suit is for partition, the alternative prayer contained in paragraph-4(a) was in the nature of a prayer for specific performance of contract. Therefore, the principle of law approved by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in R. Ramamurthi Iyer Vs. Raja V. Rajeswara Rao, is not strictly applicable. 7. It has also been submitted by the counsel for the opposite party that where a vested right has been created in the opposite party the effect of such vested right should not be taken away by way of amendment. Merely because the plaintiff had made an alternative prayer to the effect that the defendant should be directed to purchase the property on paying the balance consideration money and the defendant had conceded to such prayer, it cannot be said that a vested right has been created in favour of the defendant. The facts of the case reported in R. Ramamurthi Iyer Vs. Raja V. Rajeswara Rao, were entirely different and since withdrawal of the suit would have deprived the defendant of a vested right, such a prayer had been refused by the Supreme Court. In the present case, it cannot be said that any vested right has been created. 8. The learned counsel for the opposite party also submitted that if such a prayer would not have been made in the original plaint, the defendant could have claimed such a relief either by filing a separate suit or by making a counter claim in the very same suit and the defendant would be deprived of such right if amendment is allowed now, as filing of a suit at this stage would be admittedly time-barred. It is, therefore, submitted that since the amendment would cause irreparable prejudice to the defendant, such amendment should not be allowed. This submission of the learned counsel for the opposite party is only partially correct in the sense that if the defendant would be called upon to file a fresh suit now seeking specific performance of contract, such suit would be admittedly time-barred; but there is no bar for the defendant to claim such a relief by way of counter claim by amending the written statement. In fact, a perusal of the plaint and the written statement, makes it apparent that the necessary averments are already there in the pleadings. Therefore, in case the plaintiffs are allowed to amend their plaint by allowing deletion of the alternative prayer portion in paragraph-4(a), the defendant has a right under law to file additional written statement and in such additional written statement, the defendant definitely can raise a counter claim seeking the very same relief. However, since filing of additional written statement may also give rise to the question regarding limitation, the defendant should be permitted to raise such counter claim by amendment of the written statement. Law is well settled that when a pleading is permitted to be amended under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. such pleading relates back to the date of filing of the pleading. In the present case, the necessity for amendment of the written statement would arise only because the plaintiffs have sought that the defendant should be similarly allowed to amend his written statement to raise a counter claim and if such a petition for amendment is filed raising counter claim, it should be allowed as a necessary corollary to the prayer for amendment of the plaint being allowed. 9. The allowing of the amendment at this stage would inevitably result in prolongation of the trial. Such a situation has been brought about by the plaintiffs' prayer for amendment at a be.lated stage. It is, therefore, just and proper to direct the plaintiff to compensate the defendant by way of cost. The Civil Revision and the prayer for amendment are allowed subject to the directions already contained in the judgment and subject further to the condition that a sum of Rs. 750/- should be paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant by way of cost. Such cost should be paid as a condition precedent for allowing the amendment on or before of October, 1998. The cost may be paid to the party or the counsel in the trial Court. After the trial Court is satisfied regarding payment of cost, it shall give opportunity to the defendant to amend the written statement to include a counter claim and thereafter proceed to decide the suit in accordance with law. The parties shall be entitled to adduce such further evidence as found necessary.