' UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.---This is a petition challenging the determination by the respondent No,1 State Bank of Pakistan ("SBP") dated 24-11-2004 made upon application by the petitioner for grant of benefit under BPD Circular No,29 of 2002. The impugned order accepts that the case of a rescheduled finance attracts loss classification after 90 days of default, whereupon the customer on account of the provisions of BPD Circular Letter No,7 dated 4-3-2003 becomes entitled to treatment under BPD Circular No,29. Upon a factual analysis of the accounts of the petitioner, however, the impugned order by the SBP has concluded that the petitioner made the last payment under its rescheduling package on 31-12-2002 and that it was in default merely for a duration of 63 days on the date of enforcement of BPD Circular No,7 dated 4-3-2003, and therefore did not satisfy the requisite default criteria for loss classification.
2. Considerable arguments took place about the way in which the SBP has interpreted the accounts between the parties and given effect to the aforesaid BPD Circular No,7 with the result that the petitioner is denied benefit of BPD Circular No,29 of 2002. However, with the assistance of the learned counsel, the accounts between the parties have been perused carefully wherefrom it transpires that during the period under consideration, namely, 30-6-1999 to 30-6-2002 7 instalments together in the amount of Rs,80.963 million were due from the petitioner to the respondent No,3 bank ("bank") in the petitioner's mark-up bearing finance account NIDF-I. During the said period, the petitioner made payments to the bank cumulatively amounting to Rs,80.963 million that were adjusted towards accrued mark-up and principal outstanding. Coupled with the down payment of Rs,2.706 million, the total payments made by the petitioner come to Rs,83.669 million. It is evident from the figures that the total amount paid by the petitioner is somewhat more than the amount due under the 7 instalments. Even in relation the frozen mark-up account bearing NIDF-II, it is noticed that the petitioner paid on 31-12-2002 the overdue instalment that was due on 30-6-2002.
3. In the result, the total payments made by the petitioner equal the total obligations due under the restructuring package; therefore the first default by the petitioner occurred by the nonpayment of the instalments due on 30-12-2002. On the date when BPD Circular No,29 was enforced namely 15- 10-2002, the petitioner was not in default at all under the NIDF-I and only marginally under the connected NIDF-II which contains the collateral amount of frozen mark-up.
4. Although due to the bank's apportionment of the payments made by the petitioner, default is shown in the petitioner's statement of accounts of NIDF-I, in fact the overall obligations of the petitioner under the repayment schedule have been fully met. Insofar as a dispute on the apportionment is concerned, the same involves a question of fact that is inappropriate for enquiry in the writ jurisdiction. However, that question has been raised by the petitioner in its PLA filed in the bank's C.O.S. No,36 of 2004 that is pending adjudication before this Court.
5. Resultantly, the challenge to the interpretation by the SPB, of its BPD Circular No,7 of 2003 read with BPD Circular No,29 of 2002, is not a question that arises for determination on the present facts of the case where the overall payments by the petitioner during the period under consideration tally fully with its obligations under its restructuring package. In the result, there is no default by the petitioner that would qualify it for classification in the loss category under BPD Circular No,29 of 2002 and consequently to benefit thereunder. In the result this petition does not have merit and is accordingly dismissed.