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

The petitioners challenged the Tahsildar’s order dated 16 January 2025 attaching property in connection with amounts allegedly due to respondents 5 and 6.

The attachment followed an order made by the Deputy Commissioner on 10 April 2024, pursuant to a request from respondent 4, the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), after the petitioners allegedly failed to pay the amounts due.

The Tahsildar executed the attachment and took possession on 21 March 2025; further steps were sought toward auctioning flats.

Respondents 5 and 6 stated that the petitioners’ appeal against RERA’s order had been dismissed on 23 August 2025 and that the order had attained finality.

The judgment identifies no specific statutory provision, precedent, or detailed legal test as the basis for its decision.

Its stated principle is that, in the circumstances of this case, the petitioners could not challenge the consequential attachment order after the underlying RERA order had attained finality.

The Court preserved the petitioners’ ability to challenge the RERA order if otherwise entitled to do so in law.

The Court noted that the attachment followed the Deputy Commissioner’s order and that the Tahsildar had executed it by taking possession of the property.

It accepted the respondents’ submission that the appeal challenging the underlying RERA order had been dismissed and that the order had attained finality.

As the petitioners had not produced material showing a challenge to that order, the Court held that they could not, at that stage, invalidate the consequential attachment order.

It nevertheless left open the petitioners’ right to challenge the RERA order concerning the property, if legally available.