Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:

1. Objections related to the mode of proof of a document are procedural in nature and can be waived if not raised at the appropriate time, specifically before the document is marked as an exhibit and admitted into evidence (!) (!) .

2. When a party admits a certified copy of a document without raising an objection to its mode of proof at the time of admission, they cannot later challenge its admissibility on procedural grounds (!) (!) .

3. If the objection is that the mode of proof was irregular or insufficient, it must be raised at the trial stage before the document is marked and admitted. Failure to do so results in waiver of that objection (!) (!) .

4. The admissibility of secondary evidence, such as a certified copy, depends on whether the foundation for its admissibility was properly laid. If the original document is not produced, the party must establish that the original is lost or unavailable, and this must be done before the document is admitted (!) (!) .

5. In the case discussed, the party did not challenge the execution of the original documents or object to their admission at the appropriate time, leading to the conclusion that the documents were properly admitted and their contents accepted (!) (!) .

6. The failure to object at the time of admission of the document led to the waiver of procedural objections, and the appellate court was correct in relying on the certified copies for its decision (!) (!) .

7. The procedural rules emphasize that objections to the mode of proof should be made immediately and prior to the document being marked as an exhibit. Objections made after the fact are generally considered waived, especially if the document has been admitted without challenge (!) (!) .

8. The appellate court's decision to uphold the admissibility of the documents was consistent with procedural law principles, given the absence of timely objections (!) (!) .

These points highlight the importance of raising procedural objections promptly during trial to preserve the right to challenge evidence's admissibility.