JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - During the course of hearing an objection was taken by the learned counsel for the respondents on maintainability of the writ petition. 2. Responding to the aforesaid objection, Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on death of one of the plaintiffs if cause of action survives the suit shall continue. 3. The plea taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is on merits of the impugned order dated 15.06.2011 passed in Title (Partition) Suit No.4 of 1999. 4. Section 2(2) CPC defines decree to include: "(2) "decree" means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the mattes in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within section 144, but shall not include- (a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order, or (b) any order of dismissal for default. Explanation - 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." 5. By the impugned order dated 15.06.2011 the partition suit has been dismissed and this is not an order on default and while so, an appeal shall lie against the impugned order dated 15.06.2011 passed in Title (Partition) Suit No.4 of 1999. 6. At this stage, Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file First Appeal against the impugned order dated 15.06.2011. 7. Mr. Arbind Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for the respondents, however, has raised an issue on limitation. 8. Permission to challenge the impugned order dated 15.06.2011 passed in Title (Partition) Suit No.4 of 1999 by filing an appeal is granted. The petitioner, if so advised, may prefer an appeal within eight weeks and the question of limitation shall be considered by the appellate court considering pendency of this writ petition before this Court. 9. The writ petition stands withdrawn, with the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner.