Once Documents Are Held Irrelevant, Oral Evidence Regarding Their Contents Cannot Be Led: Supreme Court

"Parties cannot be permitted to adduce oral evidence as to them by an indirect method." Supreme Court, in a judgment dated August 14, 2026, held that once internal documents, notings, or correspondence are held to be irrelevant and refused to be taken on record, parties cannot be permitted to adduce oral evidence regarding their contents through an indirect method.

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe observed that allowing witnesses to depose about the contents of excluded documents would undermine the finality of earlier judicial orders and result in a lopsided trial. The court dismissed an appeal filed by Reliance Industries Limited arising out of a two-decade-old commercial suit concerning a natural gas supply dispute with NTPC Limited.

The dispute stems from a commercial suit filed by NTPC Limited in 2006 seeking specific performance of a contract for the supply of 132 trillion BTU of natural gas for 17 years based on a Letter of Intent issued in June 2004. Over the course of the trial, multiple rounds of litigation erupted regarding discovery, inspection, and the production of internal documents. The Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court in earlier rounds had conclusively held that internal notings and correspondence between officers of the parties were irrelevant to determine whether a concluded contract existed. Despite these binding orders, the defendant sought to introduce oral evidence through its witness regarding the contents of those very excluded documents, leading to the present round of litigation.

The primary question before the court was whether a party can lead oral evidence regarding the contents of internal documents and meetings when the underlying documents themselves have been held to be irrelevant and refused on record. The court was also called upon to determine whether such oral testimony constitutes an impermissible indirect method of bypassing final judicial orders.

Court Reaffirms Bar On Oral Evidence Of Irrelevant Documents

The Supreme Court firmly rejected the attempt to bypass earlier exclusionary orders by relying on the examination-in-chief of defendant witness B.K. Ganguly. The bench noted that previous orders holding internal correspondence and notings to be irrelevant had attained finality and operated as binding precedents on the trial court.

"Orders Have Attained Finality And Are Binding"

The court emphasized that it was not open to the parties to reopen closed issues or re-litigate the admissibility of evidence under the guise of examining a witness who was party to internal discussions. The bench held that permitting a witness to orally depose about what transpired in internal meetings or communications that were already ruled inadmissible would defeat the purpose of the initial exclusionary orders.

Internal Communications Cannot Be Smuggled In Through Oral Testimony

The court underscored that while the mere fact that a meeting took place or that a person held a certain state of mind may be permissible, witnesses cannot be allowed to testify about the contents of documents that were legally barred from the evidentiary record. The bench ruled that oral testimony cannot be used as a backdoor channel to smuggle in the contents of rejected internal emails and notings.

High Court's Meticulous Scrutiny Upheld

The court closely examined the exercise undertaken by the High Court, which had meticulously parsed the examination-in-chief affidavits paragraph by paragraph. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had correctly distinguished between inadmissible internal communications and permissible testimony reflecting the witness's independent perception and state of mind at the relevant time.

"Litigation Prolongation Reflects Poorly On Judicial Proceedings"

Expressing deep anguish over the continuous delays plaguing a commercial suit pending since 2006, the bench noted that the matter had seen obstruction at every single stage across two decades. The court criticized the parties for dragging out trial proceedings through repetitive applications and appeals, observing that allowing litigants to indefinitely prolong trials reflects poorly on the judicial system.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by Reliance Industries Limited with costs quantified at Rs. 10 lakhs, payable to the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association within five weeks. The court reiterated its earlier directions requesting the trial court to conclude the proceedings expeditiously without granting any further latitude for delay.

Date of Decision: 14 August 2026