CR No.6817 of 2009 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on January 19,2010. Gurlabh Singh -Petitioner vs. Kuldip Singh and another --Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Tribhuwan Singla,Advocate,Advocate,for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Jain, This revision is directed against the order dated 12.9.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barnala, who not only closed evidence of the objector on the ground that he could not lead evidence despite last opportunity, but also dismissed the objections filed under Order 17 Rule 3 of C.P.C.,thereafter ordered for attachment of the property of the judgment debtor and its sale as per program, namely by issuance of Notice on 8.10.2009; Munadi on 26.10.2009; Auction on 10.11.2009 and Report on 28.11.2009. Present revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 12.9.2009 on 19.11.2009 much after the auction had taken place on 10.11.2009 without assigning any reason for not leading evidence despite last opportunity having been granted. The petitioner also could not satisfy the Court as to why the present revision has been filed even after auction. CR No.6817 of 2009 2 In fact, there is no ground taken in the grounds of revision nor addressed at the time of arguments by the learned counsel for the petitioner in order to find fault with the impugned order. Thus, the present revision petition which is lacking material for its success is dismissed in limine, though without any order as to costs. January 19,2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge