preserving the rule on partial partition must be revisited and redesigned to address the contemporary challenges facing judiciary. If judiciary has to acquire a certain degree of professionalism, it must start with a plan of action for conserving its time, and spending it well. This will provide the cutting-edge to its efficiency. Therefore, the present rule on partial partition is re-visited and modified, and it is as follows: Where the plaintiff has the notice about the availability of certain properties not included in a suit for partition, and faces resistance to the suit with a defense founded on the rule of partial partition, and still omits to include the omitted properties, then in appropriate cases, the Courts must, instead of dismissing the suit, pass a decree for partition of those properties which are before the Court, and simultaneously foreclose all options for a suit for partition of the properties omitted in the first suit. A shade of this idea is available in the doctrine of res judicata , more particularly in the rule of constructive res judicata, and also in Order II Rule 2 CPC. The point is, should the psyche that rejects the respect for judicial time be conferred with the honours of a second opportunity for wasting the first opportunity? Nothing can be more grandiose a blunder than an opportunity that the Court itself grants for re-litigation to aid the abuse of its own process. The puritans of the traditional view may have their moments of discomfort here,
