JUDGMENT : Dr. A.K. Rath, J. This petition challenges the order dated 05.07.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Cuttack in T.S. No. 253 of 1992. By the said order, the learned trial court rejected the application of defendant no.2 (b) under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. to implead one Sumitra Prusty, a stranger to contract. 2. Opposite party no.1 as plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of contract impleading one Narayan Birabar Samanta as defendant. During pendency of the suit, the defendant died. Thereafter, the legal heirs of defendant were substituted. While the matter stood thus, the defendant no.2(b) filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead one Sumitra Prusty. The same was rejected. 3. The question does arise as to whether the third party in a suit for specific performance of contract, a stranger or third party to contrat is a necessary or proper party ? The subject-matter of dispute is no more res integra. 4. This Court in the case of Manmohan Sahu Vrs. Ashis Kumar Mandal and others, 2016(II) OLR-128, held thus : “6. This is not a virgin ground in so far as the question is concerned. The subject-matter of dispute is no more res integra. In Anil Kumar Singh v. Shivnath Mishra @ Gadasa Guru, (1995) 3 SCC 147 , the apex Court held that since the applicant who sought for his addition is not a party to the agreement for sale, it cannot be said that in his absence, the dispute as to specific performance cannot be decided. In paragraph 9 of the report, it is stated that: “Since the respondent is not a party to the agreement of sale, it cannot be said that without his presence the dispute as to specific performance cannot be determined. Therefore, he is not a necessary party.” 7. In Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and others, AIR 2005 SC 2813 , the apex Court held that in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale, the plaintiff cannot be forced to add as a party. He does not want to fight unless it is compulsion of the rule of law. He is a dominus litus. In Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and others, AIR 2005 SC 2813 , the apex Court held that in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale, the plaintiff cannot be forced to add as a party. He does not want to fight unless it is compulsion of the rule of law. He is a dominus litus. In a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale, the issue to be decided is the enforceability of the contract entered into between the parties and whether the plaintiff was/is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and whether he is entitled to a decree for specific performance of a contract against the defendants. The scope of suit for specific performance of the contract for sale shall be enlarged from the suit for specific performance to a suit for title and possession which is impermissible in law. To decide the right, title and interest in the suit property of the stranger to the contract is beyond the scope of the suit for specific performance of the contract and the same cannot be turned into a regular title suit. Therefore, the third party or a stranger to the contract cannot be added so as to convert a suit of one character into a suit of different character. 8. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the apex Court in the decisions cited supra, the inescapable conclusion is that the petitioner is neither necessary party nor proper party to the suit.” 5. As a sequel to above discussion, the petition is dismissed.