JUDGMENT 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. 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 directed that the defendants shall be entitled to make payment under a monthly instalment of Rs. 400/- beginning from 1st April, 1984 and subsequent monthly instalment should be deposited by 15th of each succeeding month. The defendants thereafter were required to pay the amount of interest on and from 12th May, 1980 at the rate of 6% per annum. The mortgage and charge described in the schedules to the plaint would stand redeemed on such payments. 400/- beginning from 1st April, 1984 and subsequent monthly instalment should be deposited by 15th of each succeeding month. The defendants thereafter were required to pay the amount of interest on and from 12th May, 1980 at the rate of 6% per annum. The mortgage and charge described in the schedules to the plaint would stand redeemed on such payments. It was further directed that if the defendants would fail to deposit a single instalment towards the decretal dues Rs. 45,767.53 or the amount of interest after the assessment, the plaintiff would be at liberty to apply for final decree and for sale of the mortgaged and/or hypothecated properties described in the schedules to the plaint and the plaintiff would be entitled to get its dues satisfied from the sale proceeds and in case the sale proceeds would be found short of the amount due and/or the properties would not be available for sale, the plaintiff bank would have the right to apply for personal decree against the defendants for recovery of the balance of the entire dues as the case would be. 6. Mr. Ray, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant Bank, has contended that the suit was essentially a suit for enforcement of mortgages both of movable and immovable properties. In a case like this, a preliminary decree was required to be drawn up. Mr. Ray has further contended that although Order 34 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure in terms does not apply to suits for enforcement of mortgage of movables, but it has been held in a decision of this Court reported in AIR 1987 Calcutta 143 that a suit for enforcement of such mortgage will still be a mortgage suit resulting in a mortgage decree though not in terms of Order 34. It has been further held that such a suit would not result in a simple money decree but there should be decree for sale. The learned Counsel has contended that in the instant case, there is also mortgage of immovables and inspite of for such mortgage of immovables, the provisions of Order 34 in terms apply. Mr. Roy has further contended that the learned trial Judge has gone wrong in granting instalments to the defendants for payment of the decretal amount in a suit for sale of mortgaged properties. Mr. Mr. Roy has further contended that the learned trial Judge has gone wrong in granting instalments to the defendants for payment of the decretal amount in a suit for sale of mortgaged properties. Mr. Roy has contended that law is well settled by decisions of different High Courts including of this Court that both in the cases of mortgage of movables and immovables, the question of grant of instalment does not arise at all. It has been held that the outer limit of the period of redemption of the dues on account of mortgage of such movables or immovables is six months as provided under Order 34 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court while passing a preliminary decree after adjudicating the dues on the mortgage or after declaring the amount due should direct the judgment debtor to pay off the amount under mortgage including the interest thereon and other costs and charges adjudged to be due within a period not exceeding six months from the date of passing of the decree. For the aforesaid contention, Mr. Roy has relied on the following decisions :– (1) AIR 1987 Calcutta 143 (2) AIR 1984 Punjab & Haryana 209 (3) AIR 1948 Patna 18 (4) AIR 1986 Gujarat 113 (5) AIR 1927 Lahore 415 7. Mr. Roy has also referred to a decision of this Court reported in (6) 1988 (1) Calcutta Law Journal 69 and has submitted that the said decision also supports the view that in mortgage decree no discretion is left to the Court to grant instalment. Coming to the question of Court’s Power to grant interest other than the contractual rate while passing a preliminary decree in a mortgage suit for sale, Mr. Roy has submitted that in cases of mortgage the relief for which a decree for sale is to be made, the Court after adjudging the amount due inclusive of interest on such mortgage, costs and charges should fix a time not beyond the period of six months from the date of the preliminary decree for paying off the dues. In other words, in the preliminary decree in such case, a period of redemption is to be fixed. Mr. Roy has contended that in cases of mortgage suit the Court cannot vary the contractual rate of interest up to the period of redemption. In other words, in the preliminary decree in such case, a period of redemption is to be fixed. Mr. Roy has contended that in cases of mortgage suit the Court cannot vary the contractual rate of interest up to the period of redemption. He has further contended that in cases of mortgage, question as to the rate of interest has to be determined under the provisions of Order 34 and not under section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He has contended on the authority of several decisions relied on by as reported in (7) AIR 1927 Privy Council 1; AIR 1927 Lahore 415 ; (8) AIR 1969 SC 671 and (9) AIR 1985 Orissa 163 that till the period of redemption expires, the matter remains in the field of contract and the interest has to be paid at the rate specified in the contract of the mortgage. He has submitted that until the expiry of the period fixed by the preliminary decree for payment of the principal amount declared due the interest has to be calculated on the basis of contractual rate. Referring to the decree of the Court by allowing rate of interest at the rate of 6% per annum in the instant case, Mr. Roy has contended that the learned trial Judge did not exercise the discretion properly in allowing the interest at the rate of 6%. He has contended that even if it is assumed that in terms of Order 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court has a discretion to grant interest other than the rate fixed by the contract, such discretion must be exercised judicially. But in the instant case, the Court failed to note the prevailing market rate and in any event the learned trial Judge should not have allowed interest at the rate of 6% in favour of the defendants. Mr. Roy has further contended that there is no finding to the effect that the conduct of the mortgagee was such which would disentitle the mortgagee from claiming the contractual rate of 13%. There is also no finding that the mortgagor was not in a position to pay the contractual rate. There was also no finding that the contractual rate of interest of 13% was excessive or harsh. There is also no finding that the mortgagor was not in a position to pay the contractual rate. There was also no finding that the contractual rate of interest of 13% was excessive or harsh. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Court in exercise of the discretion in fair and just manner should have allowed the said interest at the rate of 13% per annum and there is no reason why a very low rate of interest of 6% was allowed by the learned trial Judge. Mr. Roy has therefore submitted that the decree passed by the learned trial Judge should be modified by directing for sale of the mortgaged properties for satisfaction of the mortgage dues as held by the Court and the rate of interest at the rate of 13% should also be allowed by this Court by modifying the decree. 8. Mr. Roy Chowdhury, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, has submitted that the reliefs claimed in this suit clearly indicate that the Bank principaly claimed recovery of a consolidated sum of Rs. 45,767.53 with interest at the rate of 13% on the said sum from 12th May, 1980 till realization. It would further appear that the plaintiff Bank also made a claim for a declaration of charge on the properties described in Schedules 'A' and 'B' as well as preliminary decree for sale under Order 34 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure with consequential prayers. At the trial, the claim of the plaintiff Bank was admitted and a prayer was made for leave to pay the money by instalment in view of acute financial difficulties of the defendants. Considering the said facts and considering the hardship to be suffered by the defendants, the learned trial Judge passed a decree inter alia directing the defendants to pay off the principal dues by instalment at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month with effect from 1st April, 1984 and the learned trial Judge further directed for payment of interest from 12th May, 1980 as claimed by the plaintiff at the rate or 6% per annum but not at the rate of 13 % as claimed. So far as the grant of instalment for payment of the decretal amount under the mortgage, Mr. Roy Chowdhury has contended that the defendants respondents have already deposited a sum of Rs. 25,600/- toward the principal. So far as the grant of instalment for payment of the decretal amount under the mortgage, Mr. Roy Chowdhury has contended that the defendants respondents have already deposited a sum of Rs. 25,600/- toward the principal. As the primary claim which would appear from prayer (a) of the plaint was for money, the Court has ample jurisdiction to grant instalment under Order 20 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and for such contention, Mr. Roy Chowdhury has referred to a decision of this Court reported in 1988(1) Calcutta Law Journal 69. Mr. Roy Chowdhury has further submitted that if this Court was not inclined to accept the said submission of the respondents and holds that in the facts of the case there was no occasion to grant instalment for payment of the decretal dues as allowed by the learned trial Judge, the respondents would pay the balance amount towards the principal within three months from the date instead of payment by way of instalmenl at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month. Coming to the question of rate of interest to be paid by the judgment-debtors respondents. Mr. Roy Chowdhury has contended that if the claim is accepted to be a money claim, provision of Order 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure will have no application and section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply. The trial Court was, therefore, right in exercising its power limiting the rate of interest at 6% per annum. Mr. Roy Chowdhury has contended that even in cases governed under Order 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Supreme Court and other Courts have taken the view that the said provisions have given some amount of discretion to the Court so far as interest pendente lite and subsequent interests are concerned and it is not absolutely obligatory on the Courts to decree interest at the contractual rates up to the date of redemption in all circumstances even if there was no question that the rate being penal, excessive or substantially unfair. In support of his contention, Mr. Roy Chowdhury has referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in (10) AIR 1969 SC 600 ; AIR 1969 SC 671 ; (11) 1971(3) SCC 893 and (12) AIR 1979 SC 852 . 9. In reply to the aforesaid contentions of Mr. Roy Chowdhury, Mr. In support of his contention, Mr. Roy Chowdhury has referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in (10) AIR 1969 SC 600 ; AIR 1969 SC 671 ; (11) 1971(3) SCC 893 and (12) AIR 1979 SC 852 . 9. In reply to the aforesaid contentions of Mr. Roy Chowdhury, Mr. Roy has contended that the decision of the Supreme Court made in the case reported in 1971 (3) SCC 893 was a case of hypothecation and not on mortgage and so far as the decision reported in AIR 1979 SC 852 is concerned, the said case was under the Interest Act and the said decision therefore was not an authority for the proposition regarding grant of interest under Order 34 Rule 4 read with Rule 2. Referring to the decision of this Court reported in 1988(1) CLJ 69 which was also relied on by Mr. Roy Chowdhury, Mr. Roy has contended this the said decision also was not in respect of a case concerning the mortgage of immovables. Mr. Roy has further contended that even if it is assumed for argument’s sake that in a case governed under Order 34 Rule 4, the Court still retains some discretion in the matter of grant of interest pendente lite and subsequent interest. As contended by Mr. Roy Chowdhury, in the facts of the case payment at the rate of 13% as claimed by the plaintiff bank was very reasonable and confirms to the pre-valent market rate. He has submitted that the learned trial Judge has not come to any finding that the conduct of the plaintiff Bank was not fair at any point of time so as to disentitle the Bank to ask for the contractual rate which is also a reasonable rate. Accordingly, in any event, the Court should have allowed 13% interest instead of 6% interest per annum. 10. After considering the respective contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it appears to us that with regard to the decree for sale of mortgage of immovable properties, provisions of Order 34, are applicable and there is no question of grant of instalment and Mr. Roy is justified in his contention that in such a case, the outer limit for payment of the decretal dues under the mortgage of movable properties is six months. In our view, Mr. Roy is justified in his contention that in such a case, the outer limit for payment of the decretal dues under the mortgage of movable properties is six months. In our view, Mr. Roy is also correct in his contention that for mortgage of movable properties although the provisions of Order 34 in terms do not apply, but a suit for recovery of the dues under the mortgage of movable properties is also not a simple suit for money decree and the principle underlying Order 34 is applicable in such a suit. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are inclined to uphold the contention of the appellant bank that the learned trial Judge was not justified in granting instalment for payment of the decretal amount both under the mortgage of movable and immovable properties. So far as the dispute as to the rate of interest to be allowed in favour of the plaintiff bank is concerned, it also appears to us that till the period of redemption, the rate of interest as specified in the contract of the mortgage should be allowed. In any event, the contractual rate of 13% has not been found by the learned trial Judge as unjustified and excessive and there is also no finding that the conduct of the plaintiff Bank was such as may disentitle the Bank of claim the contractual rate. Accordingly, even if it is assumed that such contractual rate could be varied, there was no occasion to vary the contractual rate in the facts and circumstances of the case. The mere submission by the defendants that the concern of the defendant is small one and they will suffer hardship will not be sufficient to disallow the contractual rate and to grant rate of interest at the rate of 6% per annum. In our view, there is no material sufficient to warrant that such rate of interest was very high or excessive and above the prevalent market rate. Accordingly, the claim of the plaintiff appellant for allowing interest at the rate of 13% and not at the rate of 6% should be allowed. In our view, there is no material sufficient to warrant that such rate of interest was very high or excessive and above the prevalent market rate. Accordingly, the claim of the plaintiff appellant for allowing interest at the rate of 13% and not at the rate of 6% should be allowed. We, therefore, dispose of this appeal by directing that after adjusting the payments and/or deposits already made by the respondent towards the satisfaction of the decretal dues of the appellant bank, the respondent should deposit the balance decretal dues together with interest at the rate of 13% with effect from 12th May, 1980 until the date of final realisation of the entire decretal amount of Rs. 45,767.53 within a period of three months from the rate of the judgment in this appeal. On such payment together with interest at the rate of aforesaid rate of 13% as indicated hereinbefore, the mortgage and the charge described in the schedules to the plaint would stand redeemed. If the defendants respondents would fail to make such payment of the decretal amount of Rs.45,767.53 together with interest at the rate of 13% as indicated hereinbefore, the plaintiff appellant Bank would be entitled to apply for final decree for sale of mortgaged and hypothecated properties described in the schedule to the plaint and if the dues of the plaintiff Bank would not be satisfied from the sale proceeds of the mortgaged and hypothecated properties as described in the schedules to the plaint or any other property was not available for sale, the plaintiff Bank would have the right to apply for personal decree against the defendants for recovery of the balance dues. In the facts of the case however, there will be no order as to costs. Banerjee, J. : I agree.