( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel on both sides. This matter was argued on merits for some time after which, pursuant to a suggestion from the Court that the appellants should put forward a reasonable proposal and pay up the amounts due from him, various reasons were set out in support of the request that if the appellants pays to the bank a further sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- within one month from today, that the Court should afford him one year's time to pay up the balance amount due from him. This application was seriously opposed by the bank's learned advocate who submitted that even after the passing of the decree, the appellants have not made any payments save and except Rs. One Lakh that was paid recently after direction from this Court and that consequently, no interference is called for with the judgment. He further submitted that having regard to the trace record of the appellants, that it is not a case in which the Court should grant any further time as it would work to the prejudice of the bank. The appellant's learned advocate also advanced a submission that the bank having obtained the decree, should be permitted to have resort to the remedies which the law permits for purposes of recovering the decretal amount. He has sought to place reliance on a Division Bench ruling of this Court reported in 1982 (1) Kant LJ 320 in the case of G. Marappa v. State Bank of Mysore. In a short judgment, the Division Bench had occasion to observe that instalments cannot be claimed in a mortgage suit which only stands to reason. But the Division Bench in that very judgment had pointed out that this rule would not apply to money decrees. The present suit is for the recovery of the amount claimed and even though the bank's learned advocate submits that this is a mortgage suit, I have no hesitation whatsoever from the complexion of the litigation in holding that it is a simple money decree for which, the properties might have been encumbered as collateral security. Under the circumstances, the very complexion of the litigation itself is different. However in effect the bank's learned advocate is right when he points out that (sic) a financial institution, its rights as far as recovery of its dues are concerned, should not be affected. Under the circumstances, the very complexion of the litigation itself is different. However in effect the bank's learned advocate is right when he points out that (sic) a financial institution, its rights as far as recovery of its dues are concerned, should not be affected. ( 2 ) THE appellants' learned advocate has advanced the proposal that the appellants, will of his own volition pay the bank's dues provided he is given some reasonable breathing time. This is a case in which there is substantial amount of money due to the bank and the institution itself will be put to a considerable expenditure apart from the time lag if an attempt is to be made to execute the decree. This Court must also take cognizance of the fact that expenditure apart, the appellant is justified when he points out to this Court that he is better equipped to recover the moneys due and to pay them to the bank than in a situation where his properties will be left to the mercy of auction proceedings. Viewed from any angle, if the interest of the bank is equally secured I do not see any prejudice being caused in agreeing to the proposal in question. A court is required to dispense even handed justice and it is quite obvious that from the facts of this case that the appellant did run into financial difficulties. He has proved his bona fides by making a payment of Rs. One Lakh and he is not asking for any concession with regard to the remaining payment. In these circumstances, I (sic) that the request is both reasonable and liable to be granted. ( 3 ) THE decree passed by the trial Court shall stand confirmed subject to the only modification that the appellant shall be permitted to pay to the bank a further sum of Rs. One Lakh against the satisfaction of the decree within a period of one month from today. He is granted an outer limit of one year to pay up the balance amount. Until then, the encumbrances on the property shall remain and the execution of the decree passed by the court shall be stayed. In the event of the appellant defaulting to pay the amount of Rs. He is granted an outer limit of one year to pay up the balance amount. Until then, the encumbrances on the property shall remain and the execution of the decree passed by the court shall be stayed. In the event of the appellant defaulting to pay the amount of Rs. One Lakh within one month from today or in the event of his defaulting to pay the whole or rest of the balance within the time allocated by this Court, the bank shall be free to execute the decree against the remaining amount due from the appellant after making allowance for all amounts paid by him upto that point of time. ( 4 ) IN view of the order passed by this Court, it will be unnecessary for the trial Court to proceed with the final decree proceedings though as clarified above, in the event of the appellant defaulting, the bank shall be entitled to proceed with the same from the stage at which they were stopped. The appeal to stand disposed of. Order accordingly. --- *** --- .