Expert Testimony in Commercial Suits: Andhra Pradesh High Court Clarifies Rules on Private Reports

A Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Balaji Medamalli, has reaffirmed that litigants in commercial disputes are entitled to utilize privately engaged expert reports to support their claims. The ruling, delivered in a batch of Civil Revision Petitions, underscores that while such reports can be admitted into evidence, their ultimate weight and admissibility remain subject to the scrutiny of the trial process.

Case Background: A Commercial Disagreement The litigation stems from a commercial suit ( C.O.S.No.3 of 2022 ) filed by M/s FE Engineering against ISGEC Heavy Engineering Limited. The plaintiff sought recovery of significant monetary claims arising from unpaid construction bills, retention money, and compensation for idling machinery.

During the proceedings before the Special Court for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes at Vijayawada, the plaintiff sought to introduce a report from a privately hired claims expert to quantify damages. The defendant, ISGEC Heavy Engineering Limited, contested the move, arguing that the appointment of an expert constitutes a judicial function and that a unilateral, privately obtained report should not be permissible as evidence. The challenge extended to procedural objections regarding how documents were introduced to the court.

The Arguments: Judicial Function vs. Party Autonomy Counsel for the petitioner (ISGEC Heavy Engineering) contended that the trial court erred in allowing the expert report, suggesting it was shielded from reality by its late introduction and that the power to appoint experts rests exclusively with the judiciary.

Conversely, the respondent (FE Engineering) argued that neither the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) nor the Commercial Courts Act bars a party from engaging a private expert to bolster their case. They maintained that once the report is placed on record, the adverse party retains the right to cross-examine the expert, thereby protecting the integrity of the judicial process.

Legal Analysis: The Right to Private Expertise In its nuanced judgment, the High Court distinguished between a court-appointed commissioner and an expert engaged by a party. Drawing from precedents such as Parappa and Ors. Vs. Bhimappa and Ors. and the Kerala High Court’s ruling in Santhosh K.S Vs. State of Kerala , the Bench clarified that the absence of court intervention does not render a private report inadmissible.

The Court emphasized that the mere submission of a report does not constitute substantive evidence. To be admissible, the proponent must produce the expert as a witness, offer the report through them, and subject them to the rigors of cross-examination. This ensures that the opposite party has a fair opportunity to challenge the findings.

Key Observations * On the nature of private expertise: “An expert can be engaged privately without the intervention of the court as well and his report can be filed in the Court. However, the relevancy and the admissibility of that report shall be subject to the proof, to be determined or seen at the stage of trial.” * On cross-examination: “In such a case the other side shall also have opportunity to file his evidence if so required as also to cross examine the expert, and produced as a witness in evidence.” * On the role of the trial court: “The Court has clearly taken the report subject to its relevancy and admissibility.” * On existing precedents: “There is no restriction in obtaining such a report. However, when such a report is obtained from a private expert without the intervention of the Court… Private witness can certainly be brought in by parties to the litigation.”

Final Decision and Implications The High Court dismissed the petition concerning the expert report (C.R.P. No. 1210 of 2025), upholding the Trial Court’s decision to receive the document. While regarding the second petition (C.R.P. No. 1209 of 2025), the Court set aside the previous order based on procedure but granted the respondent liberty to refile the document following the appropriate statutory provisions.

This decision serves as a significant clarification for commercial litigation in India. It balances the need for procedural compliance with the right of parties to present specialized evidence, reinforcing that the adversarial system provides sufficient safeguards through cross-examination to handle privately sourced technical evidence. Future litigants can now proceed with greater certainty when seeking to include non-court-appointed expert analysis in their own evidence bundles.