https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289409 A security bond substituted for an attachment was construed as preserving the existing position, not enlarging the plaintiff's rights, so no mistake was proved and rectification or repayment was refused. A dispute between parties to the decree over payment into Court and payment out in part satisfaction fell within the executing court's exclusive jurisdiction under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, making the suit not maintainable in that form. The negligence allegation against the solicitors also failed because it depended on the rejected claim of mistaken construction and no independent fault was established. The appeal therefore failed on rectification, restitution, and damages. en-us Fri, 15 Nov 1929 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Jul 2020 14:00:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289409 A security bond substituted for an attachment was construed as preserving the existing position, not enlarging the plaintiff's rights, so no mistake was proved and rectification or repayment was refused. A dispute between parties to the decree over payment into Court and payment out in part satisfaction fell within the executing court's exclusive jurisdiction under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, making the suit not maintainable in that form. The negligence allegation against the solicitors also failed because it depended on the rejected claim of mistaken construction and no independent fault was established. The appeal therefore failed on rectification, restitution, and damages. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 15 Nov 1929 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289409