The Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati has ruled that parties in commercial suits can rely on reports prepared by privately engaged experts. In a judgment delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Balaji Medamalli, the court dismissed a civil revision petition filed by ISGEC Heavy Engineering Limited.
The ruling clarifies that while courts have the authority to appoint commissioners, litigants are not precluded from hiring their own experts to provide technical opinions.
The dispute originated from a recovery suit filed by M/s FE Engineering against ISGEC Heavy Engineering Limited regarding monetary claims from a contract. During the proceedings at the Commercial Court at Vijayawada, the plaintiff sought to place an expert report on record to quantify claimed losses and overheads.
The High Court upheld the lower court’s decision to allow this, noting that the admissibility of such reports remains subject to proof during the trial stage.
The court’s decision addresses the procedural boundaries between court-appointed officials and independent witnesses. This is particularly relevant given how strictly modern courts handle documentation. For instance, the Delhi High Court bars late document filing in specific commercial contexts, making it essential for parties to understand when and how they can introduce expert evidence.
Distinguishing court commissioners from independent experts
The petitioner, ISGEC Heavy Engineering Limited, argued that appointing an expert is a judicial function that should not be bypassed by private engagements. They contended that reports produced without court intervention should not be received in evidence. However, the Bench observed that Order XXVI Rules 9 and 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which govern court commissioners, do not prohibit private expertise.
The High Court held that a party is entitled to engage an expert independently and submit their opinion as evidence. The court noted that it may appoint a commissioner for judicial functions, but that power does not take away a litigant’s right to build their case. This ruling ensures that complex technical arguments in business disputes are not limited solely to court-initiated investigations.
Properly managing such evidence is as critical as following other procedural mandates. Just as the written statement filed in commercial suit proceedings must adhere to strict timelines, expert reports must be introduced through the correct legal channels to be considered by the bench.
Admissibility and the requirement of trial proof
Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Balaji Medamalli emphasized that simply placing a report on record does not make it automatic evidence. The relevancy and admissibility of the private report must be determined during the trial. To prove the report, the party must produce the expert as a witness, and the opposing side must be given the opportunity to cross-examine them.
The bench clarified that the other side also retains the right to file their own evidence or counter-reports. This bilateral process ensures that while private experts are permitted, their findings are scrutinized under the same rigour as any other testimony.
The court rejected claims that the report in this case existed prior to the suit, noting that such factual pleas were not raised in the lower court.
Legal framework for expert evidence in commercial suits
The following table outlines the key legal components and procedural rules addressed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati regarding the use of private experts in commercial litigation.
| Legal Component | Relevant Provision / Detail | Court’s Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Court-Appointed Experts | CPC Order XXVI Rules 9 & 10 | A judicial function that does not preclude private engagement. |
| Private Expert Reports | Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC | Admissible as evidence subject to proof and trial scrutiny. |
| Opposing Party Rights | Cross-examination | Must have the opportunity to test the expert’s opinion in court. |
| Case Reference | CRP Nos. 1209 & 1210 of 2025 | ISGEC Heavy Engineering Limited v. M/s FE Engineering. |
The ruling highlights a significant aspect of commercial litigation where technical data often dictates the outcome of recovery suits. Litigants frequently face hurdles when attempting to introduce complex documents later in a case. This is why the documents annexed to a plaint are vital for establishing a clear cause of action from the outset.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a commercial court refuse a report because the expert was hired privately?
No. According to the Andhra Pradesh High Court, a court cannot reject an expert report solely because the expert was engaged by a litigant rather than being appointed by the court in a judicial capacity.
What must a party do to make a private expert report admissible?
The party must produce the expert as a witness during the trial. The report’s admissibility depends on the expert proving the document and being subjected to cross-examination by the opposing side.
Does a private expert report carry more weight than a court commissioner?
The court distinguishes between the two but notes that a private expert acts as a witness for the party. Their evidentiary value is tested during the trial stage based on relevancy and the strength of the testimony provided.