If a person promised to be something that he knew or knew carefully and whose promise gave did not know that it was impossible or illegal, he must pay such compensation for any loss that such a promise would suffer if the undertaking was not met. Section 56 adopts a positive decision on frustration and does not leave the issue of frustration to the court. It is not possible to reach agreement on a change in circumstances and it has also been found that when a review of the terms of the contract, given the circumstances in which it was carried out, shows that the parties have never agreed to be bound in a fundamentally different situation that occurs unexpectedly, that the contract will no longer be bound at that time- , but does not apply in the event of actual construction in this situation; Shyam Biri Works Pvt. Ltd. v U.P. Forest Corporation, AIR 1990 SC 205. An agreement to do an impossible act in itself is a nullig part. (a) A agrees with B to discover treasures by magic. The agreement is not done. The lesson of the treaty`s frustration stems from the impossibility of taking action. But the principle is not limited to physical impossibilities.
In the case of Satyabrata Ghose vs. Mugneeram Bangurn – Co- Anr3, it was found that “impossible” in section 56 of the law was not used in the sense of a physical or literal impossibility. The execution of an action may not be literally impossible, but it can be unenforceable and unnecessary, and if an untoward event or a change in circumstances completely upsets the basis on which the parties based their negotiations, it is safe to say that the Promisor does not find it impossible to do the act it promised. Therefore, if the object of the contract is lost, the contract is frustrated. The impossibility of section 56 of the law is not limited to something that is not humanly possible, as in the case of Sushila Devi vs. Hari Singh.  The Court of Justice found that if the performance of the contract becomes unenforceable or unnecessary given the purpose and purpose of the parties, the performance of the contract became impossible. But the higher events should remove the very basis of the contract and it should be of such a character that it touches the root of the contract.
As happened in a real estate rental case which, after the unfortunate division of India and Pakistan, the disputed property in India, went to the side of Pakistan, making the terms of the agreement impossible.