In a suit for sale of mortgaged properties, the court cannot grant installments for payment of the decretal amount. The outer limit for payment of the decretal dues under the mortgage of movable properties is six months. Till the period of redemption, the rate of interest as specified in the contract of the mortgage should be allowed.

Ray, J. : This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25th February, 1984 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Additional Court, Hooghly in Title Suit No. 35 of 1983.

2. The plaintiff appellant instituted the said Title Suit for sale of the mortgaged properties for non-payment of the dues of the appellant. The learned trial Judge decreed the claim of the plaintiff appellant and also gave certain directions for payment of the decretal amount by instalment and also deferred the payment of interest. Although the suit was decreed but being dissatisfied and aggrieved by the aforesaid direction about instalment and for deferring the payment of interest, the instant appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff appellant.

3. The case of the plaintiff appellant in short is that the appellant sanctioned a loan of Rs. 29,000/- on the application of the defendants dated 11th March, 1974 for a loan of Rs. 40,000/-. Such loan was sanctioned under certain terms and conditions as stated in the plaint. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants agreed to abide by the aforesaid terms and conditions imposed by the plaintiff on 13th February, 1975 and the Defendant No. 2 executed a Promissory note and also letter of continuity enclosing promissory note for Rs. 29,000/- and a deed of hypothecation of debts and movable assets, a deed of hypothecation of goods, a deed of hypothecation of plant and machinery of the Defendant No.1 and a letter of guarantee. On the same day, the Defendant No.2 also created an equitable mortgage in respect of the immovable properties of the Defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff Bank. On the formalities being observed, the plaintiff Bank extended a cash credit-cum-term loan facility to the defendants. The account was opened at Uttarpara Branch of the plaintiff Bank and the Defendant No. 2 operated the Bank and derived advantage of the facilities of Cash and Credit-cum-term loan advanced by the plaintiff Bank to the defendants. Subsequently the limit of loan amount was enhanced and modified on the defendants’ application dated 22nd September, 1975. After enhancement of the limit, the defendants derived advantage of the extended facilities, but the defendants defaulted in making payment of instalment inspite of receipt of demand notice sent by the plaintiff Bank. In view of such failure of the defendants to pay, the aforesaid suit was instituted by the plaintiff Bank.

4. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement inter alia denying all material allegation made in the plaint and they contended that the plaintiff Bank got some documents executed from the defendants without explaining the contents thereof and got some unfilled papers executed by them without reading out the same to the defendants and without explaining the contents thereof. The defendants further contended that if proper accounting would be made, the real dues would be less than Rs. 45,767.53. The defendants contended that the concern of the Defendant No. 2 viz. Eshani Rubber Industries was a small unit and the plaintiff Bank has put the defendants in a very difficult situation by not providing the finance when such financial assistance was necessary. The plaintiff Bank also created problem for the defendants by refusing to accept part payment, although such part payment was being received by the plaintiff Bank previously. The defendants contended that if at all a decree was to be passed against the defendants, they should be given chance to repay under easy instalment at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month.

5. As aforesaid after considering the respective cases of the parties and evidence adduced in the suit, the learned trial Judge decreed the suit on contest with costs and passed a preliminary decree for Rs. 45,767.53. A further decree was also passed for the amount of interest calculated at the rate of 6% per annum on and from 12th May, 1980 till actual realization. But the learned trial Judge dir