Existence of Course of Business (s. 14) — BSA (Law of Evidence) Notes

Existence of Course of Business (s. 14)

You post a properly stamped, correctly addressed letter. Did it arrive? You cannot summon every postman on its route. But you can prove that the postal system, in its ordinary course, delivers such letters — and from that regular practice the court will infer that this one, too, was delivered.

Section 14 [IEA s. 16] is the last of the “closely connected facts” sections. It makes relevant the existence of any course of business, when the question is whether a particular act was done, if the act would ordinarily be done as part of that course.

In plain terms: when a person or an office has a regular, established practice of doing something in a certain way, that practice is relevant to show that, on the occasion in question, the act was probably done in the usual way. The classic illustration: it is the ordinary course of business for the post office to deliver a properly addressed, prepaid and posted letter; that course of business is relevant to prove that a particular such letter reached the addressee.

Why the rule exists. Regular routines are reliable. It would be impossibly burdensome to prove every routine step directly, so the law permits the court to infer that what usually happens did happen — a sensible presumption grounded in ordinary experience.

The limit: the inference is only that the act was probably done in the usual way. It is rebuttable — the other side may show that on this occasion the routine was broken.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — the posted letter

Facts. A sues to enforce a notice he claims to have sent B by post. A proves he wrote the notice, addressed it correctly, stamped it and dropped it in the post box. B denies receiving it.

Rule. Section 14 makes the ordinary course of business relevant to show a particular act was probably done in the usual way.

Apply. The post office’s regular course of delivering properly posted letters is relevant to raise the inference that B, in the usual course, received the notice.

Conclusion. The course of business is relevant under s. 14; the court may infer delivery, though B may rebut it by showing the routine failed.

Section 14, BSA 2023: “When there is a question whether a particular act was done, the existence of any course of business, according to which it naturally would have been done, is a relevant fact.”

In Simple Terms: Prove that something is normally done a certain way in the regular run of business, and the court will accept that it was probably done that way this time too.

flowchart TD
    ROOT["Was a particular act done? (s. 14)"]:::root
    ROOT --> A["Prove a regular course of business"]:::leaf
    A --> B["Infer the act was probably<br/>done in the usual way"]:::leaf
    B --> C["Rebuttable — routine may<br/>have failed this once"]:::diamond
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef diamond fill:#FDECEA,stroke:#B22222,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

No leading case is required; the section is applied through its standard illustration — the regular course of the post office is relevant to infer that a properly posted letter was delivered.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All BSA (Law of Evidence) topics