T. N. VALLINAYAGAM, J. ( 1 ) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29-8-1994, passed by the court of the principal civil judge and c. j. m. , bijapur in small cause suit No. 187 of 1993 holding the defendants to be liable to pay the decretal amount and thereby granting four equal half yearly instalments to pay the same with single default clause, the 1st defendant has come forward with the present crp. ( 2 ) HEARD Mr. Basavaprabhu s. Patil, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri r. b. anneppanavar, counsel for r-1a to 1b and Sri i. r. biradar for respondents 2 and 3. ( 3 ) IN a suit for recovery of money due on the basis of a promissory note, the petitioner herein contended that though he took the loan of rs. 10,000/- from the plaintiff on 4-5-1988, the suit filed on 9-12-1991 is barred by limitation. The other defence was that in the event of court coming to the conclusion that the loan is still payable, the defendant be granted to pay the same in yearly instalment and at the rate of Rs. 500/- per year since the oil mill did not work. The court below found that another pronote was executed on 9-12-1988 under ex. P. 8, as the defendant failed to pay the same within three months apart from issuing a post dated cheque under ex. P. 10, which was admittedly dishonoured. therefore, the suit filed is intime. ( 4 ) AS there was no other defence, the trial court taking into consideration, the provision under order 20, Rule 11 of the CPC, granted four equal half yearly instalments to pay the decretal amount with current and future interest at the rate of 12% p. a. with single default clause. ( 5 ) THE same point of limitation is urged before this court, not with standing the fact the clear finding rendered by the trial court and plea for instalments are reiterated on the ground that there was a severe drought and famine and the purpose for which the loan was taken could not be utilised for running the oil mill. ( 6 ) I do not find either on the ground of limitation or on the ground of asking for easier instalment is sustainable. ( 6 ) I do not find either on the ground of limitation or on the ground of asking for easier instalment is sustainable. ( 7 ) THE provision in CPC is to permit the judgment-debtor to pay the decreed amount in instalments is order 20, Rule 11. The two stages are contemplated in granting instalments. One is hearing the parties before judgment and incorporating the order in the judgment itself. Sub-clause (2) contemplates the situation after the decree and after the decree, the instalments can be granted only with the consent of the decree-holder. in fact, this court had an occasion to consider the direction to pay the decreed money in instalments in Karnataka bank limited v triyambak venkatesh hebsur. This court laid down/held as follows. "in making an order or direction while passing a decree for money granting the benefit of paying the amount in instalments, the court must consider the condition of the debtor and his ability to pay the amount. The court has also to take other circumstances into consideration like the date when the loan was incurred, the amount of loan, the amount of instalment ordered and the number of years, in the course of which, the decree is to be satisfied. An instalment decree spreading the instalments with large number of years is an oppressive measure against the interests of the creditor. The court while passing decree for instalments should guard the interests of the creditors". the same view was reiterated in sha mohanlal v Mysore mills, to the following effect. "the discretion to be exercised in granting instalments is judicial and not an arbitrary one. The order has to be supported by cogent and convincing reasons as to why the discretion is exercised in favour of the judgment-debtor. all the relevant circumstances like the purpose of availing the loan, the time got, the date of the decree and the question as to whether the decree-holder would require the amount immediately are to be considered before granting instalments of postponing the payment of the decretal amount". when the instalment was so small and that it will cover interest alone, then the said instalment was liable to be cancelled as per the view of this court in k. Sathyanarayana v m. Govindaraj, wherein this court has held as follows. "the trial court granted a decree for Rs. when the instalment was so small and that it will cover interest alone, then the said instalment was liable to be cancelled as per the view of this court in k. Sathyanarayana v m. Govindaraj, wherein this court has held as follows. "the trial court granted a decree for Rs. 24,000/- and allowed the defendant to pay the decretal amount in monthly instalments of Rs. 200/- per month. The principal amount would earn a specific amount of interest per, year and the instalment covers only major portion of the interest. Therefore, in revision, the high court set aside the order granting instalments and directed payment of, the amount in one lump". ( 8 ) IN the light of the dictum mentioned above, the grant of instalments by the trial court is fair and reasonable and praying for Rs. 500/- yearly instalment by the defendant will be hit by the dictum mentioned last in k. Sathyanarayana's case, supra, as interest alone on the principal comes to Rs. 1,200/- per annum. Therefore, such a prayer is not permissible and if such a prayer is granted, the principal amount will remain static for years together. ( 9 ) IN this view, this crp is dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. --- *** --- .