Indian law on splitting of causes of action, grounded in Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, closely parallels the doctrines of claim preclusion in the U.S. and cause of action estoppel in the U.K., yet applies a stricter procedural discipline. In the U.S., the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel prevent re‑litigation of issues that were or could have been decided, but courts allow limited exceptions when fairness or jurisdictional reasons justify separate filings. The U.K. system, developed through Henderson v. Henderson and refined by the House of Lords, follows an abuse‑of‑process test—focusing more on fairness and efficiency than rigid formalism. By contrast, Indian courts, including the Supreme Court, emphasize procedural completeness and insist that all reliefs from the same transaction be claimed together, as underscored in Sonic Surgical v. National Insurance Co. and Cuddalore Powergen v. Chemplast (2025). The key lesson India draws from these foreign approaches is the balance between efficiency and equity—favoring finality in litigation but evolving toward flexibility where distinct obligations or evolving rights justify distinct actions.
