The doctrine of privity finds its genesis from the common law principle and is one of the most debated subjects under the Law of contracts. The ambiguity behind the legal position is not solely because of the absence of clarity in the statute or dissenting verdicts but also the academic and judicial discourses that are associated with the genesis of the doctrine. The Indian Law defines the subject broadly as compared to English Law. Herein, according to the Law of contracts, a third party can be awarded damages if the infringement is proved and if that party comes under the scope of ‘intended beneficiary’ who has reciprocal obligations under the contract. The paper critically scrutinizes the vast kaleidoscopic range and convoluting nuances of the doctrine with the help of favouring as well as dissenting judicial pronouncements in India and England and elaborates cogently upon the essential features of the doctrine. Furthermore, it also highlights the scope of its application and certain exceptions like the rule of estoppel, acknowledgement and so on, wherein a stranger can enforce his/her rights (sue or claim damages) even without being a party to the contract.