Over-reaching the process of court

Restoring equity in case of over reach:

Over-reaching to manipulate witness:

A party cannot be permitted to over reach the process of the Court to communicate directly with the witness when it itself had summoned him in terms of Order XVI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In any event, it was the duty of the petitioner to be fair to this Tribunal by bringing it to its notice that it had addressed such a letter to BECIL in relation whereto attention of witness was drawn. The cross-examination of expert witness is a different matter but an expert representing an independent agency is not expected to meet either of the parties to the lis or their counsel. If an expert witness has appeared before a Court of law having received the summons, he can only attend the Court and express his opinion on the subject on which he has been asked to depose. It is not a case where this Tribunal can condone a lapse on a part of a party to the lis. For all intent and purport, the action on the part of the petitioner amounts to over-reaching the process of law. It must be deprecated in strongest terms.

[Source: Ortel Communications Ltd v. Zee Turner Ltd. (Telecom Tribunal)]

Over-reaching the process of court:

Where it appears that the orders if passed by court, will be rendered ineffectual, court may pass orders in mandatory form to restore equity.

if a party knowing that his opponent has either approached the Court or is taking steps to approach it for a certain specific relief, does anything to make the grant of the relief by way of prevention in effective, the Court has always jurisdiction to pass Orders even in ordinary cases in a mandatory form and to direct restoration of the status quo ante in a manner and to the extent possible.  It will be a fortiori case when the relief claimed is for a grant of any of the Writs and of direction contemplated by Article 226 of Constitution of India.”
[Sources: OUSEPH V/S G. P. TAHSILDAR, Minister for Food,AIR 1951 Travancore 226 (DB) followed in Joseph v. Asst. Excise Commissioner and others, A.I.R. [1953] Travancore ‑ 145. and also in THIYAGARAJAH v.SHAHUL HAMEED 1984 SLR (1) 98 (Sri Lanka)]