This case comment analyses the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Sulthan Said Ibrahim v. Prakasan & Ors., 2025 INSC 767, which addresses significant procedural questions concerning impleadment of parties, the doctrine of res judicata, and the consequences of decrees for specific performance. The dispute arose from a suit seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property. After prolonged litigation across multiple judicial forums, the controversy before the Supreme Court primarily concerned whether a party impleaded as a legal representative under Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 could subsequently seek deletion from the array of parties under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, and whether such an application would be barred by the principle of res judicata. The Court examined the procedural history of the dispute, including the execution proceedings and applications for rescission of the contract under the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It reaffirmed that objections relating to impleadment must be raised at the earliest possible stage, and failure to do so may attract the bar of constructive res judicata. The judgment also clarified that where a decree for specific performance is granted in respect of immovable property held in exclusive possession of the defendant, delivery of possession may follow as an implied consequence of the decree even if not expressly granted. The ruling reinforces the importance of procedural finality and discourages litigants from raising belated objections aimed at delaying execution proceedings. By reaffirming established jurisprudence on res judicata and the scope of impleadment under the Code of Civil Procedure, the decision contributes to the broader objective of ensuring certainty and efficiency in civil litigation.