Judgment :- 1. The decree-holders in a suit for partition, are the revision petitioners 2. The preliminary decree was passed on 15-12-1973. It declared that the plaintiffs are entitled to an extent of 35 cents out of the plaint schedule property which measures 72 cents in extent. The decretal part of the judgment reads: "In the result there will be a partition of the plaint schedule item No.1 under which 35 cents will be allotted to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs will not be entitled to recover possession of the share so allotted during the life time of defendants 2 and 3. The fifth defendant is also allowed to apply for allocation of 1 cent cm payment of court fee for the purpose The defendants 1 to 4 are restrained by an injunction from committing any acts of waste in the property or inducting strangers into possession till a final decree is passed. The injunction will continue in force even after the final decree in respect of the share allotted to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs may apply for passing a final decree and for the issue of a commission for measuring the property and locating the share. The application should be accompanied by a commission batta Rs. 50/- and Surveyors batta Rs. 25/-. Parties will suffer their costs." (emphasis supplied) On a reading of this decree, it is clear that this decree is partly preliminary and partly final. Regarding the decree for injunction, it is final and hence executable. That a decree can be partly preliminary and partly final is clear from the Explanation to S.2(2) C. P. C. The Explanation reads:? "A decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of It is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit. It may be partly preliminary and partly final". 3. It is the common case of the parties that one of the reliefs prayed for in the suit pertained to the grant of injunction. That it is so can be seen from the above excerpt from the judgment. That the decree for injunction was intended to be in force even after the passing of the final decree, is clear from the composite decree. That the decree granting injunction thus forms part of the final decree is clear from the wordings of the decretal part of the judgment. 4. That the decree for injunction was intended to be in force even after the passing of the final decree, is clear from the composite decree. That the decree granting injunction thus forms part of the final decree is clear from the wordings of the decretal part of the judgment. 4. The court below without considering these aspects of the case has, by the order under challenge, dismissed the execution petition to take action against the respondents for violation of the decree for injunction. In a case where a decree is partly preliminary and partly final it cannot be said that that part of the decree which in the beginning itself was final would cease to be an executable decree on the passing of the final decree resulting in the erasure of that part of the decree which was to start with a preliminary decree. The court below in my judgment has not approached the issue in the right perspective. The order under challenge accordingly is set aside and the execution petition is remanded to the court below for a denovo consideration. The court below shall keep in view the observation contained this order while disposing of the point arising for consideration in the execution petition. The C.R.P. is disposed of as above.