C.S. No. 54/2009 OMP(M) No.13/2011 03.08.2011 Present: Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate with S/Sh. Ramakant Sharma and Man Singh, Advocates, for the plaintiff. Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G for defendant No.1 Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate, for defendants No. 2(i) to 2(iv) and also for defendants No. 3 to 5 Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Advocate, for defendant No. 6 Plaintiff has filed the suit praying for the following relief:- “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the suit of the plaintiff may be decreed for a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- along with interest from the date of institution of the suit till the date of decree and further from the date of its payment by the defendants to the plaintiffs @ 18%.” 2. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff expired on 20.03.2011. As per the averments made in the plaint, false case was registered against him under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 on 30.12.2003. As such, he was maliciously prosecuted resulting into undue hardship, humiliation and harassment. This was done with an ulterior motive of harassing the plaintiff. Malicious prosecution has not only caused him mental agony, loss of reputation but also financial loss. It has effected his reputation in the eyes of public also. As such, due to the illegal act of the defendants, plaintiff has claimed damages of Rs.18,00,000/-. Significantly in the plaint, there are no averments as to how the said malicious prosecution has effected the business of the plaintiff. Hence in view of the maxim ‘Actio personalis cum moritur persona’, after the death of the plaintiff, cause of action does not survive and, as such, the application along with the suit is bound to be dismissed. While taking this view, I am fortified by the decision rendered by the Apex Court in M. Veerappa vs. Evelyn Sequeira & Ors. (1988) 1 SCC 556. 3. Decision rendered by this court, as relied upon by Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, learned counsel for the plaintiff, in Naresh Mahajan & Ors. vs. Govind Singh , Latest HLJ 2010 (HP) 801 does not apply to the instant facts. In the said case, the Court had affirmatively formed an opinion that the “damage caused to the property’ of the plaintiff was on account of the negligent act of the defendants which question of fact was adjudicated upon by the Courts below. In the instant case, the suit was not based on the breach of any contractual obligation but found it on the basis of common law principle of tort. 4. With the aforesaid observations, the application and the suit are dismissed. August 03, 2011 ( Sanjay Karol ), (rana) Judge.