JUDGMENT V. Ratnam, C. J.—The order of the court below does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity, meriting interference in the exercise of jurisdiction under section 115, C. P. C. There is no dispute now that the H. P. State Electricity Board had obtained a decree against the petitioner for the recovery of nearly Rs. 1.36 lakhs and odo, based upon an award. To realise the amount due from the petitioner-J. D., the H. P. State Electricity Board filed an execution petition on 12-11-1992. An application was also taken out by the decree-holder under Order 21, Rule 41, C. P. C. for directing the judgment debtor to disclose its assets. In response to the direction issued by the court in that regard, on behalf of the petitioner, an affidavit had been filed by Durga Parshad to the effect that he does not hold any property, movable or immovable, in the State of Himachal Pradesh and that he is a member of Hindu Undivided Family, consisting of himself, his son and others, which owns house No. 927 in Ward No. 15, Jagadhari Town, where the printing press is being run. It is obvious, that the affidavit filed by the judgment debtor is not in accordance with what has been prescribed under Form 16-A in Appendix E to the C P. C. It is seen that the petitioner has not disclosed the income from the business, value of the house, availability of funds in banks, other investments and debts due. The affidvait filed, thus, does not disclose the assets available with the judgment debtor, the disposal of which would facilitate the discharge of debt Though the affidavit has been filed, it is seen that the affidavit does not contain the relevant particulars, as contemplated by Order 41, Rule 2, read with Form 16-A, referred to earlier. In other words, there is virtually a disobedience to the order passed by the court calling upon the judgment debtor to disclose its assets, though the order appears to have been complied with. For not furnishing the particulars, the petitioner has been regarded as having disobeyed Order 41, Rule 2, C. P. C. and the court below, therefore, was justified in ordering the detention, by issuing a warrant. In other words, there is no justification for interference, as prayed for by the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of this case. For not furnishing the particulars, the petitioner has been regarded as having disobeyed Order 41, Rule 2, C. P. C. and the court below, therefore, was justified in ordering the detention, by issuing a warrant. In other words, there is no justification for interference, as prayed for by the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of this case. The revision petition is dismissed. Revision petition dismissed.