JUDGMENT N.A. Britto, J.-Heard. Rule, By consent, heard forthwith. 2. These writ petitions are filed by the judgment debtors and are directed against the order dated 1/04/2009 of the learned Executing c Court by which the judgment debtors are directed to pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the amount due and payable to the decree holders till the date of receipt of notice of the application filed by the judgment debtors to transfer the amount from this Court to the Executing Court. 3. The contention is that the judgment debtors would not be liable to pay interest at the rate of 15% from the date the appeal was decided by this Court. This contention cannot be accepted in the facts of the case. 4. There is no dispute that the decree holders are the persons whose land was acquired by the Government by award dated 31/03/1994 of the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Against the said award the decree holders preferred a reference to be made and in the said reference the amount of compensation payable to the decree holders was enhanced to Rs. 24/- per square meter by judgment/award dated 23/12/2000. Dissatisfied with the same, the judgment debtors filed first appeals. The execution of judgment/award of the learned reference Court was stayed subject to the deposit being made by the judgment debtors of the amount due under the award of the Reference Court. The appeals filed by the judgment debtors were partly allowed and as a result the compensation payable to the decree holders was reduced to Rs. 19/- per square meter. 5. Thereafter, the decree holders filed Misc. Civil Applications for withdrawal of the money due and payable to the decree holders. The date of the said applications is not known. When the said Misc. Civil Applications came for hearing on 21.2.2007 the applicants/decree holders stated before the Court that whatever calculations the judgment debtors would submit. they would accept the same and as a result the judgment debtors were directed to submit the calculations of the amount due and payable to the decree holders within a period of four weeks consequent to the award of the reference Court being modified by this Court. On 19/07/2007, Counsel on behalf of both parties appeared before the Court and submitted that joint calculations would be submitted before the Registrar within a period of two weeks. On 19/07/2007, Counsel on behalf of both parties appeared before the Court and submitted that joint calculations would be submitted before the Registrar within a period of two weeks. The Registrar was directed to pay the amount due to the decree holders and in case by balance was left it was directed that the same be refunded to the judgment debtors. It was also stipulated that IDS would be paid by the decree holders and a certificate in Form 16A would be issued to them well in time. In case there was any dispute as regards the calculations. liberty was given to the parties to approach the Court. 6. Thereafter by letter dated 26.7.2007, the decree holders called upon the advocate of the judgment debtors to give the calculations and other details of the deposited amount but it appears that there was no positive response from the judgment debtors. By another letter dated 2.8.2007, addressed to the Registrar of this Court the decree holders brought to the notice of the Registrar that there was no co-operation from the judgment debtors. The Registrar was further informed that the decree holders were being advised to approach the reference Court for execution of the award. That is how the execution applications came to be filed before the learned Executing Court to execute the judgment/award of the learned reference Court as modified by this Court. 7. The learned reference Court relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Ramesh Mulgaonkar v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (N) and Anr.. (MCA No. 593/2006) and held that if the amount was not available to the decree holders for withdrawal, the judgment debtors would be liable to pay interest. 7. The learned reference Court relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Ramesh Mulgaonkar v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (N) and Anr.. (MCA No. 593/2006) and held that if the amount was not available to the decree holders for withdrawal, the judgment debtors would be liable to pay interest. The learned Executing Court further held that although the judgment debtors claimed that upon disposal of the appeals the amount was available for withdrawal the judgment debtors did not dispute that the decree holders had filed applications for withdrawal of the said amount; that the judgment debtors had raised objection to the said withdrawal; that the Court had passed an order directing the parties to place before it the calculations of the amount due and payable: that the judgment debtors in fact did not file such calculations before the Court; that the judgment debtors had filed an application before the High Court to transfer the amount to this Court in execution proceedings and therefore the judgment debtors did not allow the withdrawal of the said amount by the decree holders. The learned Executing Court therefore held that the decree holders would be entitled to interest at the rate of 15% per year on the amount deposited before this Court till the date of notice of the said application for transfer of the amount. 8. Shri Afonso, the learned Counsel on behalf of the judgment debtors submits that the interest payable had to cease from the date the appeal was disposed of, as from that date the decree holders were free to withdraw the amount payable to them as the money was available with the Court to be disbursed to them. Learned Counsel further submits that the amount was deposited by the judgment debtors before this Court not only to obtain a stay of execution of the award of the reference Court but also to secure the payment which may be due to the decree holders. This last submission is not supported by anything on record. Learned Counsel further submits that the amount was deposited by the judgment debtors before this Court not only to obtain a stay of execution of the award of the reference Court but also to secure the payment which may be due to the decree holders. This last submission is not supported by anything on record. On the other hand, Shri Kamat, learned Counsel on behalf of the decree holders, while supporting the impugned order, has set out the facts enumerated by me herein above and has submitted that it is because of the conduct of the judgment debtors that the decree holders had to approach the Executing Court, to execute the award - of the reference Court. 9. In my view, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Executing Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be faulted. The view held by the learned Executing Court is a plausible view, and therefore need not be interfered with in supervisory jurisdiction. It may be possible to hold the view, in a given case, that interest at the rate of 15% ought to cease to run from the date of the disposal of the appeals but considering the facts of the case, the impugned order cannot be faulted. It is because of the conduct of the judgment debtors that the decree holders were unable to receive the amount due to them after the appeals were disposed of by this Court/and because of that they had to approach the Executing Court which- has ordered the payment of interest at the rate of 15% from the date of the notice served upon the judgment debtors of transfer of the amount to the Executing Court. 10. Consequently. I find there is no merit in these Writ Petitions. The Writ Petitions therefore are hereby dismissed. Rule discharged. It is made clear as desired by the Counsel for the parties, that the interest payable will be only on the difference of the amount found due and payable, since the amount due as per the award has already been paid. Petitions Dismissed.