JUDGMENT : L. Rath, J. - This revision arises out of a petition filed by the J. Dr. in the execution case alleging satisfaction of the decree- and for dismissal of the execution case on that account. The opposite party had obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights and levied Execution Case No. 5/84 which however was dismissed for default on 28-1-1985 and thereafter she filed the Execution Case No. 4/85 in which the Petitioner filed a petition u/s 47) CPC to the effect that he has already paid the costs of the decree in the previous execution case and further in pursuance of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights he had taken the D. Hr. to his house on 2-1-1985 where they lived as husband and wife but after 15 days she voluntarily abandoned their joint living and ran away from the house. In the circumstances he prayed for dismissal of the execution case. 2. The petition was resisted by the D. Hr. by filing an objection by way of a petition denying such allegations and further stating that even though the J. Dr. had, soon after the commencement of the suit, married another lady, yet she because of helplessness is ever willing to go and live in the house of the J. Dr. 3. Evidence was led by both the parties in the case and the learned Subordinate Judge, Dhenkanal on consideration of the facts negatived the plea of the J. Dr. firstly on the ground that the petition for adjustment was time barred under Article 125 of the Limitation Act and secondly, the evidence is absolutely shaky and that,an effort of reconciliation between the parties attempted by him bad failed. 4. Mr. Panda, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges that in view of the provisions of Order 21, Rule 32 (1) CPC since it is his case that he was willing to take the D. Hr. and live with her as husband and wife, the order of execution of the decree against him cannot be sustained since no finding has been recorded by the Court that he, though had the opportunity to satisfy the decree, yet had wilfully failed to do so. 5. On perusal of the records, however it is found that the submission made by Mr. Panda does not stand scrutiny. The D. Hr. 5. On perusal of the records, however it is found that the submission made by Mr. Panda does not stand scrutiny. The D. Hr. examined as witness No. 1 for herself categorically denied the plea raised by the Petitioner of her having gone to his house. The Petitioners who was examined as witness No. 1 for himself made a statement in the last paragraph of his deposition as ?I am not agreeable to take, her?. Besides such statements in the evidence, the learned Subordinate Judge also attempted a reconciliation between the parties but on 14..10-1985 recorded an order as follows: The parties were called to the chamber to make an effort for reconciliation. The D. Hr. seems to be anxious to go and join the J. Dr. while the J. Dr. appears to be determined not to take the D. Hr. to is matrimonial house. As such the reconciliation fails. It is thus abundantly clear that the J. Dr. is never willing to take D. Hr. and satisfy the decree of restitution of conjugal rights. The statement made by him in the petition before the Executing Court was a mere subterfuse and eye wash for which the provisions of Order 21. Rule 32 (1) CPC is never intended as a cover. 6. In that view of the matter, I find no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed with costs. Final Result : Dismissed