A consequential attachment cannot be challenged after the underlying order attains finality.

The petitioners challenged a Tahsildar’s order dated 16 January 2025 attaching the subject property in connection with arrears allegedly due to respondent No. 5.

The attachment was executed on 21 March 2025, and the Tahsildar subsequently sought action to auction flats identified in the sale agreement.

Respondent No. 5 submitted that the petitioners’ appeal against the underlying order of respondent No. 4 had been dismissed on 23 August 2025 and that the order had attained finality.

The petitioners sought to quash the attachment order.

1. Whether the petitioners could challenge the consequential attachment order when the underlying order of respondent No. 4 had attained finality.

2. Whether the Tahsildar’s attachment order warranted interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The Court applied the principle that a consequential attachment order could not be challenged in these proceedings where the underlying order had attained finality and the petitioners had not produced material showing that they had challenged that order.

The petition was brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution; the Court identified no specific statutory provision or precedent as the basis for its decision.

The Court noted that the attachment followed an order of respondent No. 2, which had been made after respondent No. 4 requested action concerning the petitioners’ alleged arrears.

It also noted that the attachment had been executed and steps had been taken toward auctioning the flats.

Since the petitioners had not produced material showing a challenge to the underlying order, and the appeal against it had reportedly been dismissed with the order attaining finality, the Court held that they could not at that stage invalidate the consequential attachment order.

It left open the petitioners’ right to challenge respondent No. 4’s order concerning the property, if otherwise entitled to do so in law.