Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is the decree-holder in O.S. 267 of 1981, III Additional Sub Court, Madurai. In that suit, the petitioner obtained a decree on 15th October, 1951, for specific performance of an agreement for the sale of the properties. After obtaining the decree, the petitioner filed E.P. 167 of 1982, praying that the defendant in the suit should be directed to execute a sale deed as per the decree and failing that, the court should execute the sale deed on behalf of the defendants in O.S. 267 of 1981. The defendants in O.S. 267 of 1981, did not execute the sale deed as per the decree and, therefore, the court executed the sale deed instead. When that sale deed was presented for registration before the Sub Registrar, Alanganallur, the registration of the document was declined on the ground that the relevant statement ane annexures have not been signed by the Presiding Officer, as required by law and that until they are so signed the document cannot be registered. Whereupon on 6th April, 1984, the petitioner presented a Memo to the Court below praying that the court should execute the other documents also for securing the registration of the sale deed already executed and enclosing the fair sale deed as well as the other statements required to be signed by the Presiding Officer of the Court. On that, on 10th April, 1984, the learned Subordinate Judge passed an order to the following effect: “Heard counsel for the petitioner. This court is not personally aware of the details to be furnished in Annexure I-A etc., and therefore this court cannot sign the annexure as prayed for by the petitioner in response to the Sub Registrars direction. Hence memo is rejected.” It is the correctness of this order that is challenged in this civil revision petition. 2. Under O. 21, R. 34(5), C.P.C., the execution of a document by the Court for and on behalf of the parties to a suit shall have the same effect as its execution by the party or parties ordered to execute the same. O. 21, R. 34(6)(a), C.P.C., states that where the document requires to be registered, the court or such officer of the Court, as may be authorised in this behalf by the Court shall cause the document to be registered in accordance with such law. O. 21, R. 34(6)(a), C.P.C., states that where the document requires to be registered, the court or such officer of the Court, as may be authorised in this behalf by the Court shall cause the document to be registered in accordance with such law. That would mean that the Court is bound to execute the document as required by and in accordance with law relating to stamp and registration, which would include the signing of the requisite annexure as well as other statements. When a party to a decree refuses to execute the document in accordance therewith, the court steps into the place of the party and executes the sale deed in accordance with law. In other words, where the Court acts on behalf of the party it is as if the party himself is executing the conveyance in accordance with the requirement of the law and if the law requires the signing of certain annexures as well as statements, it will be the duty of the court to comply with those requirements as well and the court cannot plead inability to do so on the ground that it is not personally aware of the details to be furnished, especially when all the relevant particulars as well as the details required to be incorporated in the statement and the annexure have all been made available by the party, who desires the court to execute the conveyance in his favour. It may be that in some cases the particulars so furnished may require verification and that can be done by deputing an officer of court, or a Commissioner, if need be. Without doing so, the court cannot decline to sign the statements or annexures forming part of the document executed and defeat O. 21, R. 34(6)(a), C.P.C., by stating that it has no personal knowledge. Under those circumstances, the rejection of the Memo by the court below cannot be sustained, and the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge is directed to complete the other formalities required for the purpose of enabling the petitioner to secure a pucca registered conveyance with reference to the property on the basis of the decree obtained by him in O.S. 267 of 1981, III Additional Sub-Court, Madurai. Consequently, this civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. 3. Consequently, this civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. 3. C.R.P. 2858 of 1984:In view of the orders passed in C.R.P. 2857 of 1984, no orders are necessary on this civil revision petition. This civil revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.