1. ' NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J.--- In the morning when the case was called Mr. Ashiq Ali Anwar Rana, learned counsel for the plaintiff, was present and requested for adjournment. The adjournment was declined and the matter was kept aside to be taken up at 11-00 a.m. The case was taken up at 11-00 a.m. When none was present on behalf of the plaintiff and the case was again kept aside. Once again the case was taken up at 11-55 a.m. But again no one has turned up on behalf of the plaintiff.
2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendants.
3. ' The plaintiff has filed this suit for damages on account of alleged malicious and torturous act of the defendants by which the plaintiff allegedly suffer mental shock and disturbance.
4. ' The plaintiff has expired on 22-3-2005 and an application for bringing his L.Rs, was filed on 17-4- 2007 which was allowed vide order dated 30-10-2007 with the following observations:-- "With the consent of learned counsel both these applications are allowed and the plaintiff is allowed to file amended title within three days thereafter the case to be placed for arguments and first of all before going to the merit of the case arguments will be heard on the point. As to whether cause of action survives the death of plaintiff or not?"
5. ' In compliance of the said order the plaintiff has failed to file any amended title within the time allowed by the Court. Since the amended title has not been filed within the time allowed by the Court the matter has been proceeded further under Order VI, rule 18, C.P.C.
6. ' Both learned counsel for the defendants submit that the case was filed by the plaintiff for alleged personal wrong caused to him by the defendants. They further submit that in tort the cause of action extinguished on the death of either party and relied upon the cases of Government of Punjab and others v. Mst. Kamina and others 1990 CLC 404 and Abdul Majeed Sama v. The Asbestos Cement Industries Limited 1996 M LD 803.
7. ' The suit was filed on the basis of alleged personal wrong allegedly. Caused to the plaintiff by the defendants. In tort the personal action dies with the person and the effect is that the death extinguishes the liability in tort. The maxim "actio personalis moritur cum persona" was interpreted by a learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Government of Punjab and others v. Mst.
8. Kamina and others 1990 CLC 404. The operative part of which is reproduced as under:--- "From the above discussion, it is clear that the meaning of this maxim is that a personal action dies with the person, the effect is that the death extinguishes the liability in tort. In other words the death of the party wronged or the wrongdoer brings an end to the cause of action and the right to sue or be sued for, gets extinguished. But this is subject to a qualification viz. Where a tortfeasor's estate is benefited by the wrong-done, an action would be against, the representatives of a wrongdoer. The essence of the maxim applies to an action brought for damages for a personal wrong."
9. ' In other case of Abdul Majeed Sama v. The Asbestos Cement Industries Limited 1996 M LD 803 it was held that the suit for damages on account of alleged defamation would not survive death of plaintiff and would abate.
10. ' In view of above, it is clear that the cause of action has not survived the death of the plaintiff and the suit has abated and is dismissed accordingly along with the pending application, if any.