Parties Can Engage Private Expert In Commercial Suits But Admissibility Of Expert Report Subject To Proof At Trial: AP High Court

A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Balaji Medamalli dismissed a civil revision petition filed by ISGEC Heavy Engineering Limited, which had challenged an order of the Commercial Court at Vijayawada permitting M/s FE Engineering to place on record an expert report prepared by a claims expert engaged by the plaintiff.

Referring to precedents the court held:

"We are in agreement with of the view taken in Santosh (supra) and Parappa (supra). 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".

The court said that Order XXVI Rule 9 and 10 of CPC, provides for the appointment of Commissioner; however to claim that the expert was not appointed by the Court in the exercise of judicial function not enough to argue that the report obtained by the plaintiff privately cannot be taken on record.

"The appointment of Commissioner or expert may be the function of the Court, but that does not preclude to engage an expert and submit that report in evidence as also to produce such an expert to prove the report. 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. No doubt, the Court can pass order for appointment of the expert, but that does not mean that a party cannot engage a private expert and submit the report of his opinion," the court said.

The dispute arose from a commercial suit filed by FE Engineering seeking recovery of monetary claims allegedly arising out of a contract with ISGEC Heavy Engineering Limited. During the proceedings, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC seeking permission to place on record an expert report relating to the quantification of losses and overheads claimed in the suit. The Commercial Court allowed the application, holding that the report had been prepared after institution of the suit and that its relevancy and admissibility would be examined during trial.

Challenging the order, the defendant argued that appointment of an expert is a judicial function and that a report prepared by a privately engaged expert could not be received in evidence. It was also contended that the report was filed belatedly and that references in the plaint suggested the expert opinion was already available when the suit was instituted.

Rejecting these submissions, the High Court held that there is a clear distinction between a court-appointed expert and an expert engaged privately by a litigant. The Bench observed that a party is entitled to engage an expert independently and rely upon the resulting report, subject to proving its relevancy and admissibility. The Court further noted that mere production of an expert report does not automatically make it evidence, its admissibility would depend on proof during trial.

The Bench also declined to accept the contention that the report existed prior to the institution of the suit, observing that no such factual plea had been raised before the Commercial Court or in the revision petition and could not be advanced for the first time during arguments.

Finding no illegality in the Commercial Court's order, the High Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the decision permitting the expert report to be brought on record.

Case Title: ISGEC Heavy Engineering Limited v. M/s FE Engineering

Case Nos.: Civil Revision Petition Nos. 1209 and 1210 of 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri MRK Chakravarthy

Counsel for the Respondent: Sri D.S.Sivadarshan