JUDGMENT : RICHARDS, J. This appeal arises out of a suit brought upon foot of a mortgage. The defence alleged payment. The plaintiff summoned a pro forma defendant to produce the bond and, as the result of this summons, a bond was produced by some one and was given in evidence by the plaintiff as the original bond. The answering defendant produced another bond which they say is the original of the bond sued upon. It is pretty clear that one or the other of these documents must be forged. The court below, evidently hesitating to find on this issue of forgery, has decided the case on a supposed flaw in the registration. On the document adduced in evidence by the plaintiff, there appears to be an endorsement that the bond was presented for registration at a certain date at a certain time. Beneath this is a signature purporting to be that of the registering officer. Immediately under this is an endorsement of execution and payment of the consideration. Under this is what purports to be the signature of the mortgagor together with a thumb impression. The learned Subordinate Judge appears to have been of opinion that, because the signature of the mortgagor did not appear immediately under the endorsement as to presentation, he was entitled to hold that the mortgage had not been duly “presented.” In our opinion, he was, in this respect, quite wrong. 2. The signature of the mortgagor, assuming the document to be genuine, does appear and we think that it quite sufficiently complies with the provisions of section 52(I) a of the Registration Act (even on the assumption that the provisions of that section are mandatory and that non-compliance would render the document invalid). There can be no doubt that the bond sued upon was accepted by the registering authority and this raises a strong presumption that it was duly presented. We allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the court below and remand the case to that court with direction to readmit it upon its original number and to proceed to hear the same on the merits. Costs in this case will be in the discretion of the court.