JUDGMENT : The petitioner impugns Ext.P5 proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), rejecting his request for refund of the value of stamp paper purchased on 29.11.2018, saying that it has been preferred beyond the period of two months, as stipulated under Section 48(1) of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short). 2. The petitioner says that Ext.P5 is erroneous because, the proper provision to apply in this case is Section 48(2), which gives six months’ time for him to have made his application for the refund of value of the stamp paper; and that since he made such an application on 27.05.2019, it is well within time. The petitioner thus prays that Ext.P5 be set aside and the RDO be directed to consider his application on its merits, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 3. The learned Government Pleader – Smt. Resmi Thomas, submitted that Ext.P5 is irreproachable because this is a case where the petitioner has invoked Section 47(c)(5) of the Act and, therefore, that the period of limitation is two months from the date of the instrument. She, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. 4. When I evaluate the afore submissions, and in particular the contentions of the petitioner, it is luculent that, according to him, this stamp paper was purchased on 29.11.2018, but though the contents of the deed was typed into it, it was not executed by any of the parties. 5. Therefore, the relevant question is whether the provisions of Section 48(1) of the Act; or that of Section 48(2) thereof, would apply in a case like this. 6. Going by Section 48(2) of the Act, it specifically mandates that in the case of a stamp paper on which no instrument has been executed by any of the parties thereto, the period of limitation for seeking the refund of its value is six months. 7. As far as Section 47(c)(5) of the Act is concerned, when a stamp paper gets spoiled on account of “refusal of any person to act under the same, or if the purpose behind it totally fails of the intended one, then the period of limitation to seek refund of its value would be two months from the date of the said instrument. 8. 8. In the case at hand, it is indubitable that, as per the petitioner, the instrument was never executed and therefore, that only the provisions of Section 48(2) of the Act would apply, thus rendering the period of limitation to be six months. 9. When I examine Ext.P5, I notice that this aspect has never been considered by the RDO, but he has mechanically proceeded to hold that the provisions of Section 48(1) of the Act would apply and resultantly, that petitioner’s application is beyond time. In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and set aside Ext.P5; with a consequential direction to the RDO to reconsider the petitioner’s request, for refund of the value of the stamp paper, adverting to the specific provisions of Sections 47 and 48 of the Act, after affording an opportunity of being heard to him; thus culminating in an apposite order thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.