Courts view the splitting of causes of action in civil suits as a procedural irregularity that undermines judicial efficiency and fairness by encouraging multiple litigations over the same subject matter. The judicial perspective is rooted in the principle that a litigant should present all claims arising from a single transaction or occurrence in one comprehensive suit; failure to do so can result in dismissal of subsequent cases under res judicata or Order II Rule 2 of the CPC. Judges emphasize that cause-splitting wastes judicial resources, risks inconsistent verdicts, and prejudices defendants by forcing them to defend multiple suits. Best lawyers counter such objections by demonstrating that the claims in question arise from distinct transactions or legal rights, or that the omission of certain claims was neither intentional nor materially prejudicial. They often rely on precedents showing permissible separation of causes and use precise drafting, factual distinctions, and procedural compliance to persuade the court. This balanced approach allows them to safeguard their client’s interests while respecting the court’s emphasis on judicial economy and procedural integrity.
