1. This appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against the judgment and preliminary decree, dated 26.8.2000, passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), North Tripura, Kailashahar, in Title Suit No.25(Mortgage)/1999. The learned trial Judge decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and, hence, this appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. I. Chakraborty for the appellant. 3. None appeared for the respondent when the case was taken up for hearing. 4. The respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India ('LIC') filed Title Suit (Mortgage) No.25 of 1999, as plaintiff, in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kailashahar, inter alia, stating that the appellant (hereinafter mentioned as 'defendant') approached LIC for granting a loan of Rs.60,000 for construction of a shop house to facilitate his photography business and the Divisional Manager of the plaintiff sanctioned Rs.40,000 under 'M-l' scheme, on 22.2.1992 and the defendant accepted the said loan executing various documents on 26.3.1992. The amount of Rs.40,000 was disbursed to the defendant in three installments, i.e., Rs.20,000 on 6.4.1992, Rs. 15,000 on 15.5.1992 and Rs.5,000 on 14.7.1992. In terms of the sanction of loan, the defendant executed an equitable mortgage depositing title deeds of the property mentioned in the schedule of the plaint assuring payment of the sanctioned loan with interest in twenty-eight equal half yearly installments, commencing from the date of disbursement of first installment of loan and also executed several other documents, i.e., promissory notes on different dates and a life insurance policy of Rs.40,000, etc. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendant failed to make payment of installments of the loan amount even after service of notice on him and ultimately, a lawyers notice was served but the defendant failed to make payment of the same and, therefore, having no other alternative the plaintiff instituted the suit praying for recovery of the loan amount with interest to talling Rs.94,813. 5. The defendant filed written statement, inter alia, stating that the plaintiff approached for a loan of Rs.60,000 but Rs.40,000 was sanctioned which was accepted by the defendant, on 6.2.1999 and the Branch Manager of the plaintiff assured the defendant about further sanction of R.s.2,0,000 but that was not sanctioned ultimately. 5. The defendant filed written statement, inter alia, stating that the plaintiff approached for a loan of Rs.60,000 but Rs.40,000 was sanctioned which was accepted by the defendant, on 6.2.1999 and the Branch Manager of the plaintiff assured the defendant about further sanction of R.s.2,0,000 but that was not sanctioned ultimately. The defendant was asked to sign on blank promissory notes and some other blank papers and on good faith, plaintiff signed all the papers in the chamber of the Branch Manager of Rajbari Branch of LIC and also submitted his original sale deed Nos.2801 dated 6.9.1983 and No.1-2115 dated 26.9.1983 along with revenue receipts, etc., and also put his signature in some blank non-judicial stamps. All other averments made in the plaint were denied. 6. The learned trial Judge framed four issues, namely : (i) Is the suit maintainable in its present form? (ii) Is there any cause of action for this suit? (iii) Is the plaintiff entitled to get decree, as prayed for, in the plaint? (iv) Are the parties entitled to get any other relief/cost?" In support of their case, the plaintiff examined one witness, namely, PW1 Sri Paresh Chandra Paul, Branch Manager of LICI, Dharmanagar and also proved certain thirty-one sheets of document which was marked as Ext. 1 series. Defendant adduced no evidence. The learned trial Judge by impugned judgment and decree, dated 26.8.2000, decreed the suit with a preliminary decree directing that the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.94,813 from the defendant with 10% interest w.e.f. the date of decree. 7. Learned counsel, Mr. Chakraborty, has submitted that the suit was not maintainable, but no issue was framed on maintainability and, therefore, the judgment and decree was bad in law. It is also submitted by learned counsel that equitable mortgage created by deposit of sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff was not enforceable since at that point of time, there was no Notification extending the area of equitable mortgage beyond Agartala Municipal area. 8. I have meticulously gone through the pleadings of the parties and the impugned judgment passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division). There was no pleading at all raised by the defendant that the suit was not maintainable on any specific ground. No point was raised before the trial court to frame any issue on maintainability. 8. I have meticulously gone through the pleadings of the parties and the impugned judgment passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division). There was no pleading at all raised by the defendant that the suit was not maintainable on any specific ground. No point was raised before the trial court to frame any issue on maintainability. Where there was no pleading on the part of the defendant challenging maintainability of the suit, the trial court rightly did not frame any issue and as such, I find no merit in the argument. Secondly, there is also no pleading that equitable mortgage cannot be created at Kailashahar or beyond Agartala Municipal area. In the absence of any such pleading and any evidence to that effect before the trial court, such a point before the appellate court, for the first time, can in no way be entertained. On carefully going through the pleadings and the evidence on record, I find nothing to interfere in the judgment passed by the court below and, hence, the appeal stands dismissed with cost. 9. Send down the LC records along with a copy of this judgment. _____________