A consequential attachment cannot be challenged after the underlying order has attained 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 was executed and possession taken on 21 March 2025; steps were subsequently sought toward auctioning flats.

Respondents submitted that the petitioners’ appeal against the underlying order of respondent 4, the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority, had been dismissed on 23 August 2025 and that the order had attained finality.

The petitioners sought to quash the Tahsildar’s attachment order.

1. Whether the petitioners could challenge the consequential attachment order when the underlying order of respondent 4 had attained finality.

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

The petition was brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The Court applied the principle that a consequential order cannot be successfully challenged where the underlying order on which it rests has attained finality.

No statute or judicial precedent was expressly cited in the Court’s reasoning.

The Court noted that the attachment followed the proceedings initiated after the petitioners allegedly failed to pay amounts due to respondents 5 and 6, and that the attachment had been executed.

It accepted that the petitioners’ appeal against respondent 4’s underlying order had been dismissed and that the order had attained finality.

In the absence of material showing that the underlying order remained open to challenge, the petitioners could not obtain relief against the consequential attachment order.

The Court therefore found no basis to interfere.

It left open the petitioners’ right to challenge respondent 4’s order concerning the property, if otherwise entitled to do so in law.