B. PRAKASH RAO, J. ( 1 ) IN these two revisions, the petitioner- plaintiff, a Chit Fund Company, seeks to challenge the orders in IA. No. 214 of 1999 in O. S. NO. 305 of 1998 dated 17-4-1999 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at warangal and in I. A. No. 1839 of 1999 in o. S. No. 61 of 1999 dated 26-10-1999 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge at eluru, dismissing the applications purported to have been filed under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC seeking attachment as against the amounts of surety. ( 2 ) IN the first revision, the petitioner- plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of amount of Rs. 3,60,980. 00 from the defendant No. 1 towards recovery of the prize amount withdrawn in chit no. LT5tw-27 in view of default in payment of instalments. As per agreement dated 17-1-1998, the defendants 2 to 5 stood as sureties. In an independent chit no. LT05tw-31, the second defendant after subscribing for 23 months, committed default in paying the instalments from 24th instalment. Hence, as per the terms therein and by law, the petitioner having lien over these amounts sought attachment. ( 3 ) IN the other revision, the suit is for recovery of Rs. 70,066. 00 from defendant no. 1 towards drawn prize money in chit no. LT27me3 in view of default in paying instalments. The other defendants 2 to 6 are sureties under the guarantee agreement dated 10-1-1998. Of them, the defendant no. 4 being the prize subscriber of another chit No. LTMEO4 for a sum of Rs. 85,000. 00 the petitioner sought attachment against this amount. ( 4 ) THESE applications were rejected mainly on the ground that there is no averment in the affidavits filed in support of the applications as to withdrawal of amounts by the sureties with an intention to delay and defeat the execution and no attachment can be made against a prize amount in another chit for the suit amount under a different chit. ( 5 ) AS both the cases involve the same question, they are heard together. The detailed arguments advanced by both the sides lead to one question viz. ( 5 ) AS both the cases involve the same question, they are heard together. The detailed arguments advanced by both the sides lead to one question viz. , whether attachment before judgment is permissible in a suit for recovery of amounts under one chit against the amounts lying in a different chit of a subscriber who is a surety for the earlier transaction. Incidentally, the question also takes in the extent of lien of the Chit Fund Company over the amounts in a chit transaction. ( 6 ) SECTION 23 of the A. P. Chit Funds Act, 1971 reads as follows:"23. Prized subscriber to give security: Before receiving the prize amount without deducting all future subscriptions, every prized subscriber shall furnish and the foreman shall take sufficient security for the due payment of future subscriptions and if the foreman is the prized subscriber, he shall give security for the due payment of future subscriptions to the satisfaction of the Registrar. " ( 7 ) SECTION 14 (2) of the said Act reads as follows:"if owing to the default of the prized subscriber the prize amount due in respect of any drawing remains unpaid before the date of the next succeeding drawing, the foreman shall deposit the same forthwith in an approved bank mentioned in the chit agreement and intimate in writing the fact of such deposit to the prized subscriber. " ( 8 ) BYE-LAW No. 3 (j) of the Chit Fund company reads as follows:" (J) The Foreman shall have a lien over the amounts, if any, due to the subscriber. If the chit subscribers are indebted to the Foreman forany amount either personally or as surety, the Foreman will have, in respect of such liabilities, a first charge over any amount that may be due to them from the Foreman and other assets lying with the Foreman. The Foreman has the right to set off such credits towards their liabilities to the Foreman when the chit prize amount is drawn. Only the balance, if any, will be paid to the subscriber. " ( 9 ) CLAUSE 9 of the agreement reads as follows:"so long as any money remains owning under this guarantee, the company shall have a lien in all amounts standing to the credit of the guarantors with the Company. Only the balance, if any, will be paid to the subscriber. " ( 9 ) CLAUSE 9 of the agreement reads as follows:"so long as any money remains owning under this guarantee, the company shall have a lien in all amounts standing to the credit of the guarantors with the Company. " ( 10 ) CONSIDERING the Banker s lien and section 171 of the Contract Act in Syndicate bank vs. Vijay Kumar, the Supreme Court held:"general lien or particular lien insurance of bank guarantee on court s direction on basis of deposit of duly discharged fixed deposit receipts recital in letters executed along with that deposits and renewals shall remain with bank so long as any amount is due to bank General lien is created in favour of Bank Bank guarantee discharged by Court attachment of FDRs Permissible only to extent or balance remaining after adjustment of its dues by bank. " ( 11 ) IN M/s. Shriram Chits and Investment (P) Ltd. , vs. Union of India, while considering the nature of a chit transaction, it was held:"the prized chit is covered by Entry 7 of List III as observed by the Court in that case. Conventional chits are also matter of contract with an added element of chance of draw of lot to choose the successful bidder. The prized chits are chits with an element of draw of luck. Otherwise, prized chits and conventional chits are forms of contract and arise out of contracts only. They are not money lending business. Applying the ratio laid down in the case of Srinivasa Enterprises ( AIR 1981 SC 504 ) (supra) it has to be held that the Chit Funds Act, in pith and substance, deals with special contract and consequently falls within entry 7 of List III of the Third schedule. It must, therefore, be held that the Chit Funds Act is within the legislative competence of the parliament. " ( 12 ) FROM a reading of the aforesaid provision and the terms under the contract, it is clear that apart from statutory coverage, there is definite term in the contract, extending lien over the amounts. And, the nature of transaction in a chit is not that of a creditor and debtor but arise out of a contract, and the parties are bound by its terms. And, the nature of transaction in a chit is not that of a creditor and debtor but arise out of a contract, and the parties are bound by its terms. The Chit Fund Company can exercise its lien and retain the amounts, the right of which is better placed than that of a garnishee. Therefore, the relief as now sought under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC is only seeking assistance through Court. There is definite allegation in the affidavits filed in support of the applications that the sureties are trying to withdraw their amounts which suffices it to treat it as an attempt by sureties to take their amounts beyond reach. There is no dispute as to their liability under the guarantee agreement. ( 13 ) IN the decisions cited on behalf of the respondent in S. P. V. Babu vs. Varalakshmi finance Corpn. T. C. I. Finance Limited vs. S. Venkateswara Rao and Rastriya Pariyojana nirman Nigam Ltd. vs. Rambachane Singh this Court has reiterated the existence and satisfaction of the requirements under order 38 Rule 5 CPC. However, these cases are not of assistance on the question involved in this case as to the extent of lien vis-a-vis the right to seek attachment. ( 14 ) EVEN the decision relied on by the court below in /. Balakrishna vs. M/s. United bank of India, Tirupathi and others has no application as it is not a case of chit transaction but seeking attachment against third parties. Therefore, it has no bearing on the present aspect. Once the party against whom the attachment is sought is a surety under a guarantee agreement and the amounts sought to be attached are that over which the company has a lien, the petitioner has rightly sought the relief. ( 15 ) IN view of the above, the revisions are allowed. The interim orders granted by this Court on 17-6-1999 and 31-3-2000 shall remain in force till the disposal of the suits. The Courts below shall expedite the disposal of the suits. No costs.