When advocates handle cases involving multiple reliefs from the same set of facts, the correct approach is to consolidate all related claims within a single plaint to comply with Order II Rule 2 CPC. Each relief—whether primary, subsidiary, or alternative—must arise from the same factual foundation but should be distinctly stated in the relief clause to avoid ambiguity. The Supreme Court in Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. v. Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Ltd. (2025) reaffirmed that plaintiffs must sue for the entirety of claims deriving from one cause of action to prevent fragmentation and ensure finality in litigation. Practitioners should map each claim to the cause of action elements, confirm their legal compatibility, and seek leave of court under Rule 2(3) if deferral of any relief is necessary. Drafting best practices include using a structured relief matrix, cross‑referencing facts with each requested remedy, and incorporating clear legal grounds to justify each prayer. This disciplined method prevents procedural lapses, protects against subsequent suit bars, and aligns with the rule’s aim of efficient adjudication and avoidance of multiplicity.
