Point of Law: It is well settled that courts will not add words to a statute or read into the statute words not in it. Even if the courts come to the conclusion that there is any omission in the words used, it cannot make up the deficiency, where wording as it exists is clear and unambiguous.

JUDGMENT :

S. Manikumar, J.

Instant writ appeals are filed against the common judgment in W.P. (C) Nos. 24728 and 25685 of 2015 dated 11.10.2017, whereby a learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions.

2. Before the writ court, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-

“(i) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing Exhibit P3 order.

(ii) declare that the petitioner is entitled for refund of the amount paid for the purchase of stamp papers.

(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 1st respondent to refund the value of the spoiled stamp/spoiled instrument legally due to the petitioner.”

3. Writ court, after considering the rival submissions, dismissed the writ petitions as follows :-

“5. I have considered the contentions advanced. Section 47 of the Kerala Stamp Act provides for refund of impressed stamps spoiled. It is stated that on an application made, within the period prescribed in Section 48, the Collector is competent to make allowance for impressed stamps spoiled. Section 47 (b) refers to the stamp on any document which is written out wholly or in part, but which is not signed or executed by any party thereto. It is therefore clear that the application for refund has to be made within the time limit specified in Section 48. Section 48 of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 reads as follows:

“48. Application for relief under Section 47 when to be made.

The application for relief under Section 47 shall be made within the following periods, that is to say -

(1) In the cases mentioned in clause (c) (5), within two months of the date of the instrument;

(2) in the case of a stamped paper on which no Instrument has been executed by any of the parties thereto, within six months after the stamp has been spoiled;

(3) in the case of a stamped paper in which an Instrument has been executed by any of the parties thereto, within six months after the date of the instrument or, if it is not dated, within six months after execution thereof by the person by whom it was first or alone executed;

Provided that (a) when the spoiled instrument has been for sufficient reasons sent out of the State, the application may be made within six months after it has been received back in the State.

(b) when, from unavoidable circumstances, any instrument for which another instrument has been substituted, cannot be given up to be cancelled within the aforesaid period, the application may be made within six months after the date of execution of the substituted instrument.”

This is a specific provision relating to the time limit within which the request for refund is to be made. Section 48(3) specifically states that in the case of a stamped paper in which an instrument has been executed by any of the parties thereto, the application for refund is to be made within six months after the date of instrument or if the instrument is not dated, within six months after execution thereof by the person by whom it was first or alone executed. The contention raised by the petitioner that the stamps become spoiled only on the expiry of four months after the date of execution cannot be accepted. In view of the specific provision contained in Section 48(3) that the application has to be filed within the time specified therein, I am of the opinion that the stand taken in the impugned orders cannot be found fault with. The writ petitions therefore fail and the same are accordingly dismissed.”

4. Both the writ appeals arise out of an issue relating to refund of stamp paid on the documents, executed for sale of properties in different survey numbers situated in Vallapuzha Village, Palakkad District, and in the abovesaid circumstances, suffice to incorporate the facts leading to the filing of the writ appeals from one such case (W. A. No. 1103 of 2021).

The appellant is the petitioner in both the w