' AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J. --- Through this single judgment I intend to decide the above captioned civil Revision No, 3769 of 1994 as well as Civil Revision Nos. 3770, 3771 and 3772 of 1994, as common question of yaw and fact is involved in all the revision petitions.
2. Through these civil revisions, petitioner-plaintiff has impugned the consolidated judgment demes dated 21.04.1994 passed by the learned District Judge, Sargodha, whereby four appeals filed by the petitioner were dismissed, and the judgment & decree dated 18.07.1991 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sargodha, whereby four suits for damages on the basis of malicious prosecution were dismissed.
3. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for damages on the basis of malicious prosecution against the respondent Muhammad Zafeer and three suits against his witnesses on the basis that a criminal case F.I.R. No, 199 under Section 506, PPC was got registered against the plaintiff and his son by the complainant on 26.04.1987. The police discharged both the accused. Then complainant filed a criminal complaint under Section 506/34, PPC. After the cursory statement learned Magistrate summoned the plaintiff and his son as accused. An application u/s. 249-A of the Cr.P.0 was filed by the accused, which was dismissed by the learned Magistrate. A criminal revision was filed, which was accepted vide judgment dated 29.11.1988 passed by the learned Addl: Sessions Judge, Sargodha, whereby accepting the application u/s. 249-A of the Cr.P.0 criminal proceedings against the plaintiff and his son were dropped. Subsequently the petitioner-plaintiff filed four suits and his son also filed four separate suits, which are not subject- matter of these civil revisions.
4. The defendants appeared and filed written statements in their respective suits. Learned Trial Court framed the issues and invited the parties to produce their respective evidence. Both the parties produced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their versions. After the completion of trial, vide judgment & decree dated 18.07.1991 all the four suits were dismissed by the learned Trial Court. Feeling aggrieved thereby, four appeals were preferred before the learned first Appellate Court, which also met with the same fate vide judgment & decrees dated 14.03.1992. Eight civil revisions were filed, four in the suits in hand and four in the suits filed by son of the plaintiff- petitioner, which were bearing No, 1456 to 1463 of 1992. This Court vide judgment dated 03.05.1993 remanded the cases to the learned first Appellate Court. The learned first Appellate Court again vide judgment & decrees dated 21.04.1994 dismissed the appeals. These civil revisions were filed in the year 1994. During the pendency of revisions, an application under Order of the CPC, CM No, 1-C- 2010, was filed by the legal heirs of plaintiff-petitioner stating therein that the sole plaintiff has passed away, therefore, they be allowed to be impleaded. The application was allowed and they became as petitioners in the civil revisions.
5. At the very outset, learned counsel representing the respondent has raised the objection that the sole petitioner who was plaintiff in the suits for damages, which were dismissed and appeals against whereof were also dismissed and the suits were never decreed at any stage, therefore, the civil revisions are not proceed able under the law as having abated. However, learned counsel for the parties have not assisted the Court by citing any case-law on the point but I have dilated upon the point and take light from the judgment of learned Division Bench of this Court reported as "1989 CLC 511 (Mst. Nasri Begum v. Virgil L. Moore, Consular For Administration, Embassy of the United States of America and 6 others)". The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced for reference as follows:--- "This question came up for examination before the Courts on numerous occasions and the answer given in the lung unbroken chain of decisions was that to such type of an action, the maxim action personalis moriture-cum-persona applied and the cause disappeared and was extinguished with the death of the wrong doer or the party wronged. The position, however, is different when the cause had matured in the decree in the plaintiffs lifetime because on the passing of the decree, there is no longer a "action personal is-cum" in existence but then the matter has passed into a judgment and merged in the estate of the deceased. Similarly, where a tort-feasor's estate stood henefited by the wrong doer an action would lie against the representatives of the wrong doer. In the present case, there is no doubt that right to get compensation for malicious prosecution was personal to the person wronged to which the above maxim of law fully applied. As said above, it is a well-established principle of law that if the wronged person brought a suit in his life-time for damages oil account of his malicious orosecution but idea before passing of a decree in his favour, the suit would clearly abate and his I3gal representatives could nit continue the suit afto: his death."
' The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in its judgment reported as '`PLD 2010 Supreme Court 612 (Mir StrksieVirRehman and others v. Yahya Bakhtiar and others) has held that:--- "In the domain of civil law, the person wronged can file a suit for damages for malicious prosecution. It is a personal action and dies with the death of either of the parties. This was so held in:---
(i) Maniratnlela Baliramlala v. Chettibai AIR 1937 Nagpur 216.
(ii) Mahant Salig Ram v. Charan Dass end another (AIR 1939 Lahore 492).
(iii) Mst. Nast:* Begum v. Virgil L. Moore, Coasular for Administration Embassy of United States of America (1989 CLC 511).
(iv) Govt. Of Punjab through Secretary Ministry of Agriculture v. Mst. Karnina (1990 CLC 404).
(v) Mercantile Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Messrs Habib and Co. And others (PLD 1967 Karachi 755).
(vi) M. Veerappa v. Evelyn Sequeria (1989 MLD 3225)."
' In the above circumstances, it is clear that when the suit for damages filed by the petitioner- plaintiff was never decreed and he passed away during the pendency of these civil revisions, therefore, on the basis of maxim "action personalis moriture-uum-persona" the cause disappeared and was extinguished with the death of wrong doer or to the party wronged and as such the proceedings abated in the light of judgments supra. In this view of the matter, these civil revisions having not proceed able stand dismissed.