SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) NOTICE to respondents 2 and 3 is dispensed with. ( 2 ) AS this appeal involves short question of law, it is a drained and heard for finaldisposal. ( 3 ) FOR the purpose of deciding the point involved in the appeal, the presence of the records is not necessary. Hence, we have heard this appeal foi final disposal. ( 4 ) THE appellant is the first defendant. The first respondent is the plaintiff. Respondents 2 and 3 are defendants 2 and 3. The appellant is the principal debtor. Defendants 2 and 3 are the mortgagors. ( 5 ) THE first respondent-plaintiff filed O. S. No. 74/1989 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Sagar for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,10,257-90 ps. by sale of mortgaged properties with interest at 16. 5% p. a. from the date of the suit till the date of realisation. ( 6 ) THE first defendant filed a memo on 11-3-1989 consenting for passing apreliminary decree. Similarly defendants 2 and 3 also filed a memo on 27-3-1991 consenting for passing a preliminary decree. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, the trial Court has specifically rejected the request of the defendants to pass a preliminary decree. Thus instead of passing a preliminary decree, it has passed a final decree itself. In a suit for recovery of mortgage money by sale of mortgaged properties, even if the defendants-mortgagors concede the claim, a preliminary decree has to be passed in terms of Order 34, Rule 4, C. P. C. and a date for redemption has to be fixed, unless the parties to the suit specifically agree for passing a final decree. The trial Judge has misconstrued the decision of this Court reported in Bank of India v C. R. Ramalinga Gupta, ILR 1986 Kar. 3620 in passing a final decree on rejecting the request for passing a preliminary decree. In that decision, it has been held that in a suit for sale on a mortgage, the mortgagor admits a part of the debt and disputes the rest. In that event, The Court can pass a partial preliminary decree and a final decree on that basis can also be passed. It has also been further held that the determination of the disputed portion of the claim of the plaintiff can be deferred. In that event, The Court can pass a partial preliminary decree and a final decree on that basis can also be passed. It has also been further held that the determination of the disputed portion of the claim of the plaintiff can be deferred. If the plaintiff succeeds, the final decree made could be supplemented or a fresh final decree be passed incorporating the additional reliefs subsequently adjudicated. Thus it is clear that Ihe trial Court has not correctly read and understood the decision in C. R Ramalinga Gupta's case. Therefore, we are of the view that the trial Court is not justified in law in passing a final decree, whereas it ought to have passed a preliminary decree. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, this appeal is allowed, the Judgment and decree of tlie trial Courtare set aside. The trial Court is directed to draw a preliminary decree in terms of the memos filed by defendants 1 to 3 in accordance with the provisions contained in order 34 of the CPC. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs in this appeal. --- *** --- .