AMITAVA LALA, J. ( 1 ) IT appears from the submis- sions as made by the petitioners that in ef- fect they are challenging the letter of 9th june, 1993 and 21st June, 1993 by saying that so far the adjustment of credit amount is concerned the same will be considered by the headquarters and the headquarters said that in view of the circular dated 28th Sept. 1990 they are not in a position to process the claim. According to the petitioners, the circular has not been shown by the respond- ent as yet nor any discussion made in the affidavit of the respondents. ( 2 ) ON the other hand, the respondents contended that the claims are from Nov. 1987 to Sept. 1988. The adjustment was sought for on 6th Feb. 1992 and the matter was considered and the adjustment was re- fused. ( 3 ) IN reply the petitioner contended that there was a lock out in the company and as soon as the lock out was lifted the adjust- ment was sought for by the company. There- fore, there is no question of delay and in the writ jurisdiction there is no period of limita- tion fixed for that purpose. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to me, firstly, the Writ Court will have to consider what is the nature of the claim. Whether the claim is statutory claim or non statutory claim. If it is a non statutory claim in that case the period of refund or period of claim is to be guided by the Limitation Act for the purpose of adjudication of the claim by a fact finding Court. This is one of the non statutory claim. Therefore, what right the petitioners accrue on the basis of the letters dated 9th June, 1993 and 21st June, 1993 has to be adjudicated by a fact finding Court. Whether the circular has over reaching effect in respect of substantiating the claim, the same will also have to be adjudicated by the fact finding court and then only whether the claim is barred or not is to be considered. Whether the circular has over reaching effect in respect of substantiating the claim, the same will also have to be adjudicated by the fact finding court and then only whether the claim is barred or not is to be considered. But when in case of non statutory demand the claim appears to be barred by limitation on the basis of the subsequent letters for adjustment, the writ Court cannot ignore the valuable defence of the respondents which would have been available for them that had there been a suit before a particular Civil Court. Hence, I cannot declare in the writ petition that life of the adjustment of the credit facility survives without the proper adjudication of the same by the Court having such jurisdiction. ( 5 ) THUS, the writ petition stands dis missed. ( 6 ) INTERIM order, if any, stands vacated. ( 7 ) NO order is passed as to costs. ( 8 ) THIS order will not prevent the petitioner to institute a suit for the purpose of any declaration or relief whatsoever and there will not be any embargo upon the parties to raise all questions including the question of limitation. ( 9 ) LET xeroxed Certified Copy of this judgment be supplied to the parties by the department within seven days from the date of putting in requisition for drawing up and completion of the order as well as the certified Copy thereof. Petition dismissed.