The doctrine of 'Lex non Cogit ad impossibilia' is an age-old maxim used globally as a measure of defense in various legal matters.

The Doctrine of 'Impossibility' has wide application and the Apex Court & the High Courts have from time to time univocally applied the doctrine of "Lex non cogit ad impossibila (law does not compel a man to do that which he cannot possibly perform) and impossibilum nulla oblignto est (law does not expect a party to do the impossible)".

The maxim "Lex non Cogit ad impossibilia" is of the Latin origin. It means the law does not compel a man to do anything vain or impossible or to do something which he cannot possibly perform.

In Hughey v. JMS Development Justice Owens of the United States Court of Appeals elaborated the words- "Lex Non cogit ad impossibilia: The law does not compel the doing of impossibilities. Here, the word "lex" literally means a system of law, "non" means does not, "cogit" means to compel, "ad" means to, and "impossibilia" means impossible. It thus means a body of law does not compel or forces someone to do the thing which is impossible.

Law requires nothing impossible. This maxim is one of the important pillars of doctrine of necessity which along with another maxim "Impotentia excusat legam" propagates that when law creates a duty or charge and the party is disabled to perform it, without any fault in him, and has no remedy over it, then the law in general will excuse him.

The genesis of the doctrine is rooted in the law of contracts. Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 allows contracts to be set aside due to supervening impossibility preventing its performance. This, however, is different from a force majeure clause which relieves the contractual obligation to perform only in an identified 'force majeure event' earmarked in the contract, whereas 'impossibility' covers other unforeseen circumstances that are not covered under the force majeure clause. Thus, principles embodied in the legal maxims 'lex non cogit ad impossibilia' and 'impotentia excusat legem' could come to the rescue in such unforeseen situations.

The Apex Court in the case of State of MP Vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan (2011) 7 SCC 639 has applied this maxim and held that where the law creates a duty or a charge and the party is disabled to perform it without any fault on his part and has no control over it, the law will in-general excuse him. The principles embodied in the legal maxims 'lex non cogit ad impossibilia' and 'impotentia excusat legem' could come to the rescue in such situations and law will generally excuse a default if a party is unable to perform a duty created by law without any default in him and where he has no remedy (impotentia excusat legem).

That the duty imposed is either impossible of performance and beyond the normal capacity of a reasonable or prudent man, or when performance in the strictest language of the enactment is either idle or impossible, then the enactment must be understood as dispensing with the strict performance of that duty.

The Apex Court in the aforesaid case held thus:
'DOCTRINE OF IMPOSSIBILITY:
38. The Court has to consider and understand the scope of application of the doctrines of "lex non cogit ad impossibilia" (the law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform); "impossibilium nulla obligatio est" (the law does not expect a party to do the impossible); and impotentia excusat legem in the qualified sense that there is a necessary or invincible disability to perform the mandatory part of the law or to forbear the prohibitory.

These maxims are akin to the maxim of Roman Law Nemo Tenetur ad Impossibilia (no one is bound to do an impossibility) which is derived from common sense and natural equity and has been adopted and applied in law from time immemorial. Therefore, when it appears that the performance of the formalities prescribed by a statute has been rendered impossible by circumstances over which the persons interested had no control, like an act of God, the circumstances will be taken as a valid excuse. (Vide: Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 3558; Hira Tikkoo v. Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 3648; and Haryana Urban Development Authority & Anr. v. Dr. Babeswar Kanhar & Anr., AIR 2005 SC 1491).

39. Thus, where the law creates a duty or charge, and the party is disabled to perform it, without any fault on his part, and has no control over it, the law will in general excuse him. Even in such a circumstance, the statutory provision is not denuded of its mandatory character because of the supervening impossibility caused therein."

It would be trite to refer to a recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Faizabad Ayodhya Development Authority vs Dr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey (2022) SCC OnLine 879 wherein the Court observed thus:

314.The maxim"lex non cogit ad impossibilia" means that the law does not expect the performance of the impossible. Though payment is possible but the logic of payment is relevant. There are cases in which compensation was tendered, but refused and then deposited in the treasury.

There was litigation in court, which was pending (or in some cases, decided); earlier references for enhancement of compensation were sought and compensation was enhanced. There was no challenge to acquisition proceedings or taking possession, etc. In pending matters in this Court or in the High Court even in proceedings relating to compensation, Section 24(2) was invoked to state that proceedings have lapsed due to non-deposit of compensation in the court or to deposit in the treasury or otherwise due to interim order of the court needful could not be done, as such proceedings should lapse.

315. In Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad [(1999) 8 SCC 266], an election petition was to be presented in the manner prescribed in Rule 6 of Chapter XXI-E of the Patna High Court Rules. The Rules stipulated that the election petition, could under no circumstances, be presented to the Registrar to save the period of limitation. The election petition could be presented in the open court up to 4.15 p.m. i.e. working hours of the court. The Chief Justice had passed the order that court shall not sit for the rest after 3.15 p.m. Thus, the petition filed the next day was held to be within time.

In Mohd. Gazi v. State of M.P. [(2000) 4 SCC 342], the maxim "actus curiae neminem gravabit" came up for consideration along with maxim "lex non cogit ad impossibilia - the law does not compel a man to perform act which is not possible. Following observations had been made: (SCC p. 347, para 7) 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the maxim of equity, namely, actus curiae neminem gravabit - an act of the court shall prejudice no man, shall be applicable.

This maxim is founded upon justice and good sense, which serves a safe and certain guide for the administration of law. The other maxim is, lex non cogit ad impossibilia - the law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform. The law itself and its administration are understood to disclaim as it does in its general aphorisms, all intention of compelling impossibilities, and the administration of law must adopt that general exception in consideration of particular cases. The applicability of the aforesaid maxims has been approved by this Court in Raj Kumar Dey v. Tarapada Dey [(1987) 4 SCC 398] and Gursharan Singh v. NDMC [(1996) 2 SCC 459].

316. Another Roman Law maxim "nemo tenetur ad impossibilia", means no one is bound to do an impossibility. Though such acts of taking possession and disbursement of compensation are not impossible, yet they are not capable of law performance, during subsistence of a court's order; the order has to be complied with and cannot be violated.

Thus, on equitable principles also, such a period has to be excluded. In Industrial Finance Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Cannanore Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd. [(2002) 5 SCC 54], this Court observed that where law creates a duty or charge and the party is disabled to perform it, without any default and has no remedy over, there the law will in general excuse him. This Court relying upon the aforesaid maxim observed as under: (SCC p. 71, para 30) "30.

The Latin maxim referred to in the English judgment lex non cogit ad impossibilia also expressed as impotentia excusat legem in common English acceptation means, the law does not compel a man to do that which he cannot possibly perform. There ought always thus to be an invincible disability to perform the obligation, and the same is akin to the Roman maxim nemo tenetur ad impossible. In Broom's Legal Maxims, the state of the situation has been described as below:

It is, then, a general rule which admits of ample practical illustration, that impotentia excusat legem; where the law creates a duty or charge, and the party is disabled to perform it, without any default in him, and has no remedy over, there the law will in general excuse him (t): and though impossibility of performance is, in general, no excuse for not performing an obligation which a party has expressly undertaken by contract, yet when the obligation is one implied by law, impossibility of performance is a good excuse.

Thus in a case in which consignees of a cargo were prevented from unloading a ship promptly by reason of a dock strike, the Court, after holding that in the absence of an express agreement to unload in a specified time there was implied obligation to unload within a reasonable time, held that the maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia applied, and Lindley, L.J., said:
"We have to do with implied obligations, and I am not aware of any case in which an obligation to pay damages is ever cast by implication upon a person for not doing that which is rendered impossible by causes beyond his control." ' " (emphasis in original)".

It is relevant to refer to Broom's Leg (p. 162), 10th Edn., where the doctrine of impossibility of performance (lex non cogit ad impossibila) which spells that however mandatory the provision may be, where it is impossible of compliance that would be a sufficient excuse for non-compliance.

It would be apropos to refer to the case of Krishnaswamy S. PD. v. Union of India [2006] 281 ITR 305 wherein the Apex Court discussed the said maxim and observed as under:

The maxim of equity, namely, actus curiae neminem gravabit an act of court shall prejudice no man, is founded upon justice and good sense which serves a safe and certain guide for the administration of law. The other relevant maxim is, lex non cogit ad impossibilia the law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform.

The law itself and its administration is understood to disclaim as it does in its general aphorisms, all intention of compelling impossibilities, and the administration of law must adopt that general exception in the consideration of particular cases. (See: M/s U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Imtiaz Hussain (2006 (1) SCC 380), Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab v. Kumar and Ors. (2006 (1) SCC 46), Mohammod Gazi v. State of M.P. and others (2000(4) SCC 342) and Gursharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee (1996 (2) SCC 459).

The Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Inhuman condition at quarantine centres and for providing better treatment to corona positive decided on 21 May 2021 has broadened the scope of the 'doctrine of impossibility', which is traditionally invoked in the contractual regime, holding that the 'doctrine of impossibility' would be equally applicable to Court orders.

The Court invoked the doctrine of impossibility terming the Allahabad High Court's order as "impossible". It is noteworthy that the law of impossibility of performance does not necessarily require absolute impossibility, but also encompass the concept of severe impracticability. The Court observed thus:

"Further while again appreciating the efforts of the judges of the High Court in looking to the matter in depth while passing orders, we are of the opinion that the High Court should normally consider the possibility of the implementation of the directions given by it, and such directions which are incapable of being implemented should be avoided. The doctrine of impossibility, in our view, would be equally applicable to Court orders as well."

It would be relevant to refer to the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1, wherein the Apex Court discussed in detail the said doctrine and observed thus:

Two Latin maxims become important at this stage. The first is lex non cogit ad impossibilia i.e. the law does not demand the impossible, and impotentia excusat legem i.e. when there is a disability that makes it impossible to obey the law, the alleged disobedience of the law is excused. This was well put by this Court in Re: Presidential Poll (1974) 2 SCC 33 as follows:

15. The impossibility of the completion of the election to fill the vacancy in the office of the President before the expiration of the term of office in the case of death of a candidate as may appear from Section 7 of the 1952 Act does not rob Article 62(1) of its mandatory character.

The maxim of law impotentia excusat legam is intimately connected with another maxim of law lex non cogit ad impossibilia. Impotentia excusat legam is that when there is a necessary or invincible disability to perform the mandatory part of the law that impotentia excuses. The law does not compel one to do that which one cannot possibly perform.

"Where the law creates a duty or charge, and the party is disabled to perform it, without any default in him, and has no remedy over it, there the law will in general excuse him." Therefore, when it appears that the performance of the formalities prescribed by a statute has been rendered impossible by circumstances over which the persons interested had no control, like the act of God, the circumstances will be taken as a valid excuse.

Where the act of God prevents the compliance of the words of a statute, the statutory provision is not denuded of its mandatory character because of supervening impossibility caused by the act of God. (See Broom's Legal Maxims 10th Edn. at pp. 162-163 and Craies on Statute Law 6th Edn. at p. 268)."

It is important to note that the provision in question in Re Presidential Poll (supra) was also mandatory, which could not be satisfied owing to an act of God, in the facts of that case. These maxims have been applied by this Court in different situations in other election cases - see Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad and Ors. (1999) 8 SCC 266 (at paragraphs 17 and 47. In Raj Kumar Dubey v. Tarapada Dey and Ors. (1987) 4 SCC 398, the maxim non cogit ad impossibilia was applied in the context of the applicability of a mandatory provision of the Registration Act, 1908, as follows:

6. We have to bear in mind two maxims of equity which are well settled, namely, actus curiae neminem gravabit - An act of the Court shall prejudice no man. In Broom's Legal Maxims, 10th Edn., 1939 at page 73 this maxim is explained that this maxim was founded upon justice and good sense; and afforded a safe and certain guide for the administration of the law.

The above maxim should, however, be applied with caution. The other maxim is lex non cogit ad impossibilia (Broom's Legal Maxims - page 162) - The law does not compel a man to do that which he cannot possibly perform. The law itself and the administration of it, said Sir W. Scott, with reference to an alleged infraction of the revenue laws, must yield to that to which everything must bend, to necessity; the law, in its most positive and peremptory 5 (1965) 3 SCR 187, at 193."

The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court recently in Re Article 370 of The Constitution decided on 11 December, 2023 reiterated the applicability of the said maxim & observed thus:

• The compliance of an impossible condition need not be explicitly excused by the provision as per the maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia."
  
  It would be trite to refer to the case of V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd. and others (2022) 2 SCC 244 wherein the Apex Court applied this maxim & observed thus:
  
  1. Section 61 of the IBC prescribing a limitation period is subservient to the principle of lex non cogit ad impossibilia which states that the law cannot mandate a person to do an impossible act. In this case, the appellant cannot be expected to file an appeal within 30 days when the order is not available;
      

It would be worthwhile to refer to Apex Court judgment in Under Article 143(1) Of The Constitution decided on 28 October, 2002 wherein the Court dealt with this Doctrine and observed thus:
The necessity for completing the election expeditiously is enjoined by the Constitution in public and State interest to see that the governance of the country is not paralysed.

The impossibility of holding the election is not a factor against the Election Commission. The maxim of law impotentia exusat legem is intimately connected with another maxim of law lex non cogit ad impossibilia. Impotentia excusat legem is that when there is a necessary or invincible disability to perform the mandatory part of the law that impotentia excuses.

The law does not compel one to do that which one cannot possibly perform. "Where the law creates a duty or charge, and the party is disabled to perform it, without any default in him, and has no remedy over it, there the law will in general excuse him." Therefore, when it appears that the performance of the formalities prescribed by a statute has been rendered impossible by circumstances over which the persons interested had no control, like the act of God, the circumstances will be taken as a valid excuse.

Where the act of God prevents the compliance of the words of a statute, the statutory provision is not denuded of its mandatory character because of supervening impossibility caused by the act of God. (See Broom's Legal Maxims 10th Edition at pp. 1962-63 and Craies on Statute Law 6th Ed. P. 268). These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Special Reference 1 of 1974 (1975 (1) SCR 504)."

It would be apposite to refer to Apex Court judgment in Engineering Analysis Centre of Engineering Analysis Pvt. Ltd. vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax [2021] SCC Online SC 159 which dealt with the Doctrine of Impossibility and observed thus:

"81. This question is answered by two latin maxims, lex non cogit ad impossibilia, i.e., the law does not demand the impossible and impotentia excusat legem, i.e., when there is a disability that makes it impossible to obey the law, the alleged disobedience of the law is excused. Recently, in the judgment in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v.Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1 delivered by this Court, this Court applied the said maxims in the context of the requirement of a certificate to produce evidence by way of electronic record under section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 and held that having taken all possible steps to obtain the certificate and yet being unable to obtain it for reasons beyond his control, the respondent in the facts of the case, was relieved of the mandatory obligation to furnish a certificate. In so holding, this Court referred to previous judgments dealing with the doctrine of impossibility and concluded as follows:

Two Latin maxims become important at this stage. The first is lex non cogit ad impossibilia i.e. the law does not demand the impossible, and impotentia excusat legem i.e. when there is a disability that makes it impossible to obey the law, the alleged disobedience of the law is excused. This was well put by this Court in Presidential Poll, In re [Presidential Poll, In re, (1974) 2 SCC 33] as follows : (SCC pp. 49-50, paras 14-15) "14.

If the completion of election before the expiration of the term is not possible because of the death of the prospective candidate it is apparent that the election has commenced before the expiration of the term but completion before the expiration of the term is rendered impossible by an act beyond the control of human agency.

The necessity for completing the election before the expiration of the term is enjoined by the Constitution in public and State interest to see that the governance of the country is not paralysed by non-compliance with the provision that there shall be a President of India.

15. The impossibility of the completion of the election to fill the vacancy in the office of the President before the expiration of the term of office in the case of death of a candidate as may appear from Section 7 of the 1952 Act does not rob Article 62(1) of its mandatory character.

The maxim of law impotentia excusat legem is intimately connected with another maxim of law lex non cogit ad impossibilia. Impotentia excusat legem is that when there is a necessary or invincible disability to perform the mandatory part of the law that impotentia excuses. The law does not compel one to do that which one cannot possibly perform.

49. In Raj Kumar Dey v. Tarapada Dey [Raj Kumar Dey v. Tarapada Dey, (1987) 4 SCC 398] , the maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia was applied in the context of the applicability of a mandatory provision of the Registration Act, 1908, as follows : (SCC pp. 402-03, paras 6-7) "6. We have to bear in mind two maxims of equity which are well settled, namely, actus curiae neminem gravabit.

An act of the court shall prejudice no man. In Broom's Legal Maxims, 10th Edn., 1939 at p. 73 this maxim is explained that this maxim was founded upon justice and good sense; and afforded a safe and certain guide for the administration of the law. The above maxim should, however, be applied with caution. The other maxim is lex non cogit ad impossibilia (Broom's Legal Maxims, p. 162) - The law does not compel a man to do that which he cannot possibly perform.

The law itself and the administration of it, said Sir W. Scott, with reference to an alleged infraction of the revenue laws, must yield to that to which everything must bend, to necessity; the law, in its most positive and peremptory injunctions, is understood to disclaim, as it does in its general aphorisms, all intention of compelling impossibilities, and the administration of laws must adopt that general exception in the consideration of all particular cases."

The discussion would be incomplete without referring to the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors. Etc.2020 (8) SCC 129. The Court dealing with the Doctrine of Impossibility observed thus:

312. The maxim "lex non cogit ad impossibilia" means that the law does not expect the performance of the impossible. Though payment is possible but the logic of payment is relevant. There are cases in which compensation was tendered, but refused and then deposited in the treasury.

There was litigation in court, which was pending (or in some cases, decided); earlier references for enhancement of compensation were sought and compensation was enhanced. There was no challenge to acquisition proceedings or taking possession etc. In pending matters in this Court or in the High Court even in proceedings relating to compensation, Section 24 (2) was invoked to state that proceedings have lapsed due to non-deposit of compensation in the court or to deposit in the treasury or otherwise due to interim order of the court needful could not be done, as such proceedings should lapse......

315. In HUDA and Anr. v. Dr. Babeswar Kanhar & Anr (2005) 1 SCC 191, this Court considered the general principle that a party prevented from doing an act by some circumstances beyond his control, can do so at the first subsequent opportunity as held in Sambasiva Chari v. Ramasami Reddi ILR (1899) 22 Mad 179 . In Dr. Babeswar Kanhar (supra), it was observed thus:

"5. What is stipulated in clause 4 of the letter dated 30-10-2001 is a communication regarding refusal to accept the allotment. This was done on 28-11-2001. Respondent 1 cannot be put to a loss for the closure of the office of HUDA on 1-12-2001 and 2-12-2001 and the postal holiday on 30-11-2001. In fact, he had no control over these matters. Even the logic of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, can be pressed into service.

Apart from the said section and various provisions in various other Acts, there is the general principle that a party prevented from doing an act by some circumstances beyond his control, can do so at the first subsequent opportunity (see Sambasiva Chari v. Ramasami Reddi, (1898) 8 MLJ 265). The underlying object of the principle is to enable a person to do what he could have done on holiday, on the next working day.

Where, therefore, a period is prescribed for the performance of an act in a court or office, and that period expires on holiday, then the act should be considered to have been done within that period if it is done on the next day on which the court or office is open. The reason is that the law does not compel the performance of an impossibility. (See Hossein Ally v.Donzelle, ILR (1880) 5 Cal 906.)

Every consideration of justice and expediency would require that the accepted principle, which underlies Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, should be applied in cases where it does not otherwise in terms apply. The principles underlying are lex non cogit ad impossibilia (the law does not compel a man to do the impossible) and actus curiae neminem gravabit (the act of court shall prejudice no man).

Above being the position, there is nothing infirm in the orders passed by the forums below. However, the rate of interest fixed appears to 205 be slightly on the higher side and is reduced to 9% to be paid with effect from 3-12-2001, i.e., the date on which the letter was received by HUDA."

316. In re Presidential Poll (1974) 2 SCC 33 , this Court made similar observations. When there is a disability to perform a part of the law, such a charge has to be excused. When performance of the formalities prescribed by a statute is rendered impossible by circumstances over which the persons concerned have no control, it has to be taken as a valid excuse. The Court observed:

15. The impossibility of the completion of the election to fill the vacancy in the office of the President before the expiration of the term of office in the case of death of a candidate as may appear from Section 7 of the 1952 Act does not rob Article 62(1) of its mandatory character.

The maxim of law impotentia excusat legam is intimately connected with another maxim of law Lex Non Cogit Ad Impossibilia. Impotentia Excusat Legam is that when there is a necessary or invincible disability to perform the mandatory part of the law that impotentia excuses. The law does not compel one to do that which one cannot possibly perform.

"Where the law creates a duty or charge, and the party is disabled to perform it, without any default in him and has no remedy over it, there the law will in general excuse him." Therefore, when it appears that the performance of the formalities prescribed by a statute has been rendered impossible by circumstances over which the persons interested had no control, like the act of God, the circumstances will be taken as a valid excuse.

Where the act of God prevents the compliance of the words of a statute, the statutory provision is not denuded of its mandatory character because of supervening impossibility caused by the act of God. (See Broom's Legal Maxims 10th Edn. At pp. 162-163 and Craies on Statute Law 6th Edn. at p. 268)."

317. In Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement (2005) 4 SCC 530 the legal maxim "impotentia excusat legem" has been applied to hold that law does not compel a man to do that which cannot possibly be performed. Though the maxim with respect to the impossibility of performance may not be strictly applicable, however, the effect of the court's order, for the time being, made the Authorities disable to fulfill the obligation.

Thus, when they were incapable of performing, they have to be permitted to perform at the first available opportunity, which is the time prescribed by the statute for them, i.e., the total period of 5 years excluding the period of the interim order."

It would be appropriate to refer to the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Premkumar reported in 2008 (2014) CTR 452 (All) wherein the Allahabad High Court while dealing with the question whether an assessee can be faulted for not declaring the amount of capital gain on acquisition of land when the amount of compensation itself is not determined held that requiring the assessee to file a proper and complete return by including the income under the head 'Capital gain' would be impossible for the assessee in such a case. The Court observed thus:

"8. If we accept the contention of the Department, it would mean that the assessee whose land has been acquired will have to file a return disclosing the amount of capital gain arising to him without even knowing what the amount of that capital gain would be because that amount can become known to him only after the award has been given.

"Lex non cogit ad impossibilia" is an age old maxim meaning that the law does not compel a man to do which he cannot possibly perform. Requiring the assessee to file a proper and complete return by including the income under the head 'Capital gain' would be impossible for the assessee, in cases of the nature referred above."

It would be worthwhile to refer to Madras High Court judgment in the case of CIT V. Revathi Equipment Ltd. (2008) 298 ITR 67 (Mad) wherein the Court dealt with question as to whether an assessee can be held liable to pay interest for failure to pay advance tax during the year when the liability to pay tax had arisen on account of amendment to law which took place after the end of the year. The Court categorically held that the assessee was not liable to pay advance tax and therefore levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C is not justified.

A law has to be interpreted having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in each case. The doctrine of impossibility is one of the important principles of equity. Certain fundamental tests have to be applied by the courts before applying the above legal maxims to the facts of a case. It ought to be ascertained that non-compliance with a law was beyond the control of the person and has occurred without any fault of the person and it resulted in an impossibility. The Courts have to ascertain whether the non-performance is due to 'impossibility' to do and 'inability' to do before giving the benefit of this doctrine.

Written By: Inder Chand Jain
Ph no: 8279945021, Email: [email protected]