When a cause of action is split across multiple suits, courts have several remedies at their disposal to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent judgments. The primary approach under Order II Rule 2 CPC is dismissal or stay of subsequent suits that arise from the same cause of action, ensuring a defendant is not vexed twice. Courts may also consolidate overlapping suits under Section 151 CPC to secure judicial economy, as reaffirmed in Chitivalasa Jute Mills v. Jaypee Rewa Cement and followed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in (2024), which emphasized consolidation to avoid conflicting decrees. If cases are pending before different forums, higher courts may invoke transfer powers under Section 24 CPC to have them tried together. Additionally, courts can strike off redundant pleadings, direct amendment of plaints, or merge identical proceedings to ensure factual and legal coherence. The Supreme Court in Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. v. Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Ltd. (2025) reiterated that overlapping suits frustrate judicial efficiency and fairness, directing lower courts to prevent such procedural abuse through proactive supervision and case management.
