( 1 ) THIS execution first appeal has been presented to this Court by Shri Brij Mohan Arora-judgment debtor challenging the order dated August 26, 1985. of Shri J. D. Kapoor, Additional District Judge, by which he had dismissed the objection petition filed by the appellant challenging the attachment of house No. C-48, East Krishan Nagar, Delhi, in execution of money decree obtained by Bank of Baroda against the appellant and three other judgment debtors for recovery of Rs. 41,251/3 IP. with costs and future interest.

( 2 ). The case of the appellant in the objection petition was that the aforesaid house is his main residential house and was exempt from attachment in execution of the money decree in view of Section 60, Sub-section (1) Clause (ccc) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as applicable to the Union Territory of Delhi. The aforesaid clause had been introduced by the Punjab State by Amendment Act of 1942 made under Section 35 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934, which has been extended to Delhi. The Clause (ccc) reads as follows:

"one main residential house and other buildings attached to it (with the material and sites thereof and the land immediately appurtenant thereto and necessary for their enjoyment) belonging to a judgment debtor other than an agriculturist and occupied by him. (Provided that the protection afforded by this clause shall not extend to any property specifically charged with the debt sought to be recovered.)"

( 3 ). It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in S. C. Jain v. Union of India and etc. , AIR 1983 Delhi 367, that the aforesaid clause is still applicable to Delhi. In the aforesaid case, a challenge was made that by virtue of Civil Procedure Amendment Act of 1976 and in view of Section 97 of the Act, this amendment made by the Punjab State introducing Clause (ccc) in Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is no longer applicable to the Union Territory of Delhi, but this challenge was repelled and it was held by the Division Bench of this Court that the said Clause (ccc) continues to apply to Delhi. No challenge has been made before me to the ratio laid down in that judgment and I am respectfully bound by the same. The Additional District Judge after recording evidence had given a finding that in fact, thepetitioner-judgment debtor had failed to prove that the aforesaid house was occupied by him for residential purpose at any time. He also gave a finding that rather it has been proved that the whole of the house was being used for commercial purposes and admittedly a portion of the house stands let out also by the judgment-debtor himself. So, with these findings he dismissed the objection petition. It is true that in the judgment the learned Additional District Judge has mentioned that a photo copy of the ration card exhibited in the case has not been duly proved. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that this finding of the Lower Court is vitiated with misreading of evidence inasmuch as the original ration card was brought by the judgment debtor while deposing as JDW1 and photo copy of the said ration card JDW1/1 was exhibited without any objection and it was not fair on the part of the Court to have come to a conclusion in the final judgment that the said ration card has not been properly proved. He has urged and rightly so, according to me, that any objection regarding mode of proof ought to have been raised at the time the document was sought to be proved in evidence. When a particular document has been exhibited without any objection regarding mode of proof, it was not proper for the Court to have taken any objection regarding the mode of proof for proving the particular document at the final stage. In case any objection had been raised, at the time the document was exhibited, regarding mode of proof, the judgment-debtor could have led evidence to prove that the ration card brought by him is a genuine one and the copy placed on the record is