JUDGMENT O.P. Saxena, J. - This is an appeal against the order dated 19th Oct. 1981 passed by the Civil Judge, Rampur, directing the parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of the suit. 2. Mss. Raza Sugar Co. Ltd. and M/s. Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. were two companies incorporated under the Rampur State Companies Act. After the merger of the State, an application under S. 394 of the Indian Companies Act was given and the two companies were amalgamated. M/s. Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. (plaintiff No. 1) was the new name given. Sri P. C. Jhunjhunwala (plaintiff No. 2) is the Director of the Company. 3. On 3rd July 1971, Uttar Pradesh Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Ordinance, 1971, U.P. Ordinance No. 13 of 1971 was promulgated. As a consequence of the Ordinance all "Scheduled Undertakings" vested in the Uttar Pradesh State Sugar Corporation Ltd. 4. On 3rd July 1971 the plaintiffs filed Writ Petition No. 4130 of 1971 against the U.P. State Government and others challenging the Ordinance. On 5th July 1971, an interim order was passed whereby status quo ante was restored. 5. Uttar Pradesh Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971 (U.P. Act No. 23 of 1971) was passed repealing the Uttar Pradesh Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Ordinance. 1971. The Gazette Notification was made on 22nd Aug., 1971. The writ petition filed by the plaintiffs was suitably amended to Writ Petition No. 4130 of 1971 was dismissed on 3rd May 1979. The appeal filed before the Supreme Court was dismissed on 2nd April 1980. 6. During the pendency of the Writ Petition No.413O of 1971. the Central Government passed the Sugar Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Ordinance 1978. This was replaced by Central Act No. 49 of 1978. It was published on 30th Dec. 1978. 7. On 30th Jan. 1979, the Central Government issued a notification taking over the management of plaintiff No. 1 and appointing Sri S. K. Nigam as the Custodian. 8. The plaintiffs filed Writ Petition No. 10430 of 1978 in the Delhi High Court challenging the Sugar Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Ordinance, 1978 and subsequently the Sugar Undertakings Taking Over of Management) Act 1978 in the Delhi High Court. The Writ Petition was dismissed. 9. The Central Government rescinded the notification taking over the management of plaintiff No. 1 and withdrew the appointment of the Custodian with effect from 1st Nov. The Writ Petition was dismissed. 9. The Central Government rescinded the notification taking over the management of plaintiff No. 1 and withdrew the appointment of the Custodian with effect from 1st Nov. 1979 vide notification dated 30th Oct. 1979. 10. On 2nd Nov. 1979 at 9 hours, the Custodian handed over charge of the Sugar Undertaking belonging to plaintiff No. 1 to the Collector, Rampur. U.P. 11. On 2nd Nov. 1979 at 11 A.M., the Collector, Rampur handed over charge of the Sugar Undertaking belonging to plaintiff No. 1 to the U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. (D.5) 12. On 24-5-79 plaintiffs filed Suit No. 28 of 1979 in the Court of Civil Judge, Ranipur against Union of India (D-1). Notified Sugar Undertaking (Raza Buland), Rampur (D-2). Custodian of the Notified Sugar Undertaking Raza Buland) (D-3), U.P. State Government (D-4) and the U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. (D-5) for a permanent injunction restraining defendants Nos. 1 to 6 from interfering. with the possession of the plaintiffs and the management of the properties detailed in para 10 of the plaint. The plaint was subsequently amended and the declaration was sought that the said properties are outside the purview of t U.P. Ordinance 13 of 1971 and U.P. Act No. 23 of 1971 and defendants 4 and 5 were not entitled to take possession of the same. It was further prayed that in case it is found that defendants 4 and 5 are in possession of any of the properties, a decree for ejectment may be passed against the defendants and possession may be restored to the plaintiffs. The suit was filed after the taking over of the management of the Sugar Undertaking by the Central Government and before its rescission vide notification dated 30th October, 1979. 13. The plaintiffs gave application paper No. 7 for a temporary injunction restraining defendant No.3, the Custodian of the Notified Sugar Undertaking (Raza Buland), Rampur from interfering with their possession and the management of the properties in suit. This application was dismissed on 9-8-79. 14. The plaintiffs gave another application paper No. 54-ga with a similar relief and the same was dismissed on 29-8-79. 15. On 2nd Nov. This application was dismissed on 9-8-79. 14. The plaintiffs gave another application paper No. 54-ga with a similar relief and the same was dismissed on 29-8-79. 15. On 2nd Nov. 1979 at about 11 A.M., the plaintiffs gave application paper No. 78-Ga with the prayer that defendants 4 and 5 be restrained from taking over the possession of the properties in suit and interfering in plaintiffs possession over the same. An interim order was passed by the Civil Judge, Rampur on the same day. A commission was issued for the service of the notices and the ad interim injunction order and the Commissioner served the same on defendants Nos. 4 and 5 on 2nd Nov, 1979 at 4.40 P.M. 16. Defendant No. 5 contested the application and filed objection paper No. 88Ga. 17. On 19th Oct. 1981 the Civil Judge, Rampur passed the impugned order and hence this appeal. 18. On 8-2-80 the plaintiffs filed Writ Petition No. 315 of 1980 before the Lucknow Bench against the State of U.P. and others in respect of certain sugar bags. This petition was dismissed on 24-10-80. 19. Sri Rishi Ram. learner counsel for the appellant submitted that by virtue of U.P. Ordinance No. 13 of 1971. the plaintiff No. 1 which was a scheduled undertaking, vested in the appellant. It was in pursuance of an interim order passed by this Court that possession had to be restored to the plaintiffs. Writ Petition No. 413(1 of 1971 was dismissed by this court on 3rd May 1979. The interim order passed by this Court became non est thereafter. plaintiff No. 1 Company remained in possession of the Sugar Undertaking for and on behalf of the real owner. The Central Government took over the management of the Sugar Undertaking with effect from 30th Jan. 1979 (sic). The properties in suit belonged to the Sugar Undertaking and fall within the definition of 'Scheduled undertaking' as given in S. 2(h) of U.P. Act No. 23 of 1971. The Custodian obtained possession over the. properties in suit when the Central Government took over the Management of the Sugar Undertaking with effect from 30th Jan. 1970. The Custodian handed over possession of the Sugar Undertaking and all the properties to the Collector. Rampur who handed over possession to the appellant on 2nd November. The Custodian obtained possession over the. properties in suit when the Central Government took over the Management of the Sugar Undertaking with effect from 30th Jan. 1970. The Custodian handed over possession of the Sugar Undertaking and all the properties to the Collector. Rampur who handed over possession to the appellant on 2nd November. 1979 at 11 A.M. The ad interim order was passed in utter haste without hearing the counsel for the appellant and it was served on the appellant in the afternoon while possession had been delivered in the early part of the day itself. The appellant has continued in possession of the properties in suit ever since then. 20. It was said that the Civil Judge, Rampur dismissed two consecutive applications given by the plaintiffs for a temporary injunction vide order dated 9th Aug. 1979 and 29th Aug. 1979. He could not grant a third application for temporary injunction on 2nd Nov. 1979. Reliance was placed on Satyadhan Ghoshal v. Smt. Deorajin Devi, AIR 1960 SC 941 and Y.B. Patil v. Y. L. Patil., AIR 1977 SC 392 in support of the contention that res judicata operates at a subsequent stage of the same suit or proceeding. The earlier orders operated as res judicata between the parties and the Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to grant a temporary injunction on 2nd Nov. 1979 at about 11 A.M. The injunction order passed by the Civil Judge was ineffective inasmuch as possession had already been taken by the appellant in the early part of the day while the interim order was served in the afternoon. The property of the order was also assailed on the ground that no additional evidence had been brought on the record by the plaintiffs after the passing of the order dated 29th Aug. 1979. Our attention was drawn to the judgment of Writ Petition No. 315 of 1980 decided on 24th Oct. 1980 wherein it was held : "The net result of all these facts and circumstances is that the undertaking in question stood transferred to and vested in the corporation on 3rd July, 72 (sic) but the possession of the sugar undertaking was actually delivered on 2nd Nov. 1979. During the intervening period the petitioner-Company ran the mill till 30th January 1979 and thereafter the Authorised Controller ran the mills till 9.00 A.M. on 2nd Nov. 1979. During the intervening period the petitioner-Company ran the mill till 30th January 1979 and thereafter the Authorised Controller ran the mills till 9.00 A.M. on 2nd Nov. 1979." It was further held : "These facts lead us to an irresistible conclusion that the petitioner company held possession of the undertaking from 5th July, 1971 to 30th Jan. 1979 on behalf of the rightful owner, namely. the Sugar Corporation. All the properties of the undertaking which includes the sugar bags and molasses and possession of which was delivered to the Collector on 2nd Nov. 1979 and stood transferred to and vested in the Sugar Corporation free from all encumbraces and the Sugar Corporation became entitled to dispose of the same in any manner it liked." 21. The impugned order was passed by the Civil Judge after hearing the parties and its validity and legality was assailed. A prima facie case, the balance of 'convenience and irreparable injury are the three essential ingredients before a court can grant a temporary injunction. In the earlier order dated 9th Aug. 1979 and 29th Aug. 1979 the Civil Judge had disbelieved the plaintiffs' version. In the earlier order he was of the opinion that the disputed properties were purchased out of the funds of the Sugar Undertaking. He held that the plaintiffs had failed to establish their case regarding exclusive ownership of the disputed properties. In the second order he held that he was not inclined to granted interim relief without any change in the circumstances. It was urged that in the impugned order it was accepted that the appellant continued possession over the Sugar Undertaking on 2nd Nov. 1979 & 11 A.M. As far as the disputed properties are concerned the Civil Judge did not hold that there was any prima facie evidence in support of the plaintiffs' version regarding their exclusive ownership. He, however. held that it was a fair question for determination at the time of trial. Our attention was drawn to the application paper No. 78-Ga moved on 2nd Nov. 1979 and it was submitted that there was no positive assertion in this application also that the plaintiffs were in possession of the disputed properties. A negative averment was made in para 4 that till that moment nothing had been taken into possession by defendants Nos. 4 and 5. 1979 and it was submitted that there was no positive assertion in this application also that the plaintiffs were in possession of the disputed properties. A negative averment was made in para 4 that till that moment nothing had been taken into possession by defendants Nos. 4 and 5. It was not, however, clarified as to whether the plaintiffs were in exclusive possession or the Custodian was in possession of the disputed properties. The Civil Judge was not certain as to whether the plaintiffs were in possession of the disputed properties or whether defendant No. 5 was in possession. Without being satisfied that the plaintiffs were in possession of the disputed properties, he could not have passed the impugned order directing the parties to maintain status quo. If the plaintiffs are not in possession the proper remedy for them was to file a suit for possession. 22. Sri Rishi Ram assailed the impugned order mainly on the following grounds:- (1) That the plaintiffs were not possessed of the disputed properties. (2) That the appellant obtained possession over the disputed properties on 2nd Nov. 1979 at 11 A.M. (3) That the finding recorded by this court in Writ Petition No. 315 of 1980 also confirmed the appellant's version. (4) That the earlier orders dated 9th Aug. 1979 and 29th Aug. 1979 operated as res judicata between the parties. (5) That the Civil Judge has passed the impugned order without recording a finding either in favour of plaintiffs' title or possession. 23. Sri Jagdish Swarup, learned counsel for the plaintiffs respondents drew our attention to the Articles of Association of the plaintiff No. 1 and submitted that the plaintiff No. 1 is carrying on other business besides the sugar business. He drew our attention to the definition of 'Scheduled Undertaking' as given in S. 2(h) of,the Act which is as below : "Scheduled undertaking" means an undertaking engaged in the manufacture or production of sugar by means of vacuum pan and with the aid of mechanical power in a factory specified in the Schedule. and comprises (i) all plant, machinery and other equipment (including milling plant, boiling house equipment, other sugar machinery, cane unloading equipment and power plant), weigh bridges, cranes, chimneys, turbines and boilers (including the foundations, super-structure and roofing thereof) pertaining to that factory. (ii) any engineering workshop, including machinery and equipment thereof. and comprises (i) all plant, machinery and other equipment (including milling plant, boiling house equipment, other sugar machinery, cane unloading equipment and power plant), weigh bridges, cranes, chimneys, turbines and boilers (including the foundations, super-structure and roofing thereof) pertaining to that factory. (ii) any engineering workshop, including machinery and equipment thereof. (iii) any chemical laboratory including any apparatus and equipment thereof. (iv) any motor or other vehicle or loco- motive, or railway sidings pertaining to that factory. (v) any dispensary or hospital or community or welfare centre exclusively for the benefit of workmen and other persons employed in that factory. (vi) all lands (other than lands held or occupied for purposes of cultivation and grove lands) and buildings held or occupied for purposes of that factory (including buildings pertaining to any of the properties and assets hereinbefore specified, and, guest houses and residences of directors, managerial personnel, staff and workmen or of any other person as lessee or licensee, and any store houses, molasses, tanks, roads, bridges, drains, culverts, tube-wells, water storage or distribution system and other civil engineering works), including any leasehold interest therein. (vii) all lime stone quarries pertaining to that factory, including any mining lease relating thereto. (viii) all electrical installations (including any plant or equipment for the generation or transmission of energy), telephone equipment furniture and fixtures pertaining to that factory or to any property or asset herein before specified : (ix) all tools, spare parts and stores pertaining to that factory. (x) all fire arms for the use of watch and ward staff employed in that factory. (xi) all maps. plans. sections, drawings and designs pertaining to that factory. (xii) all sugarcane. sugar in the process of manufacture for production, and stocks of sugar and molasses and all bagasse and pressmud. (xiii) all books of accounts. registers and other documents pertaining to the factory or to any property or asset hereinbefore specified, but does not include cash in hand, cash at bank. advances towards any income or other tax, investments and book debts, or rights, liabilities and obligations respecting any other contracts." 24. Sri Jagdish Swarup referred to the heading and the note given in the schedule. advances towards any income or other tax, investments and book debts, or rights, liabilities and obligations respecting any other contracts." 24. Sri Jagdish Swarup referred to the heading and the note given in the schedule. The heading is as below :- "Name in which the factory is registered with the Chief Inspector of Factories, Uttar Pradesh and its address." The note is as below : "Where the factory is registered in the name of the company or firm owning or holding the factory on lease, the name as registered is specified in this column, but such specification shall not be construed to mean that it is that company or firm that is being acquired by virtue of S. 3". 24A. Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd., Rampur was mentioned in the Schedule at serial No. 8. 25. Sri Jagdish Swarup submitted that what the U.P. State Government acquired was the "Scheduled Undertaking as defined in S. 2(b) of the Act and not the Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd., Rampur (P-1). As the company is doing other business also, only such property an d land within the definition of "Scheduled Undertaking" as referred to earlier alone could have been acquired by the U.P. State Government for the benefit of the U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. Other properties belonging to plaintiff No. 1 could not be deemed to have vested in the appellant by virtue of S. 3 of the Act. 26. Sri Jagdish Swarup drew our attention to the Central Act No. 49 of 1978. "Sugar Undertaking" was not defined in detail in this Act as was done in U.P. Act No. 23 of 1971. Section 2(f) defined the Sugar Undertaking as .below : "Sugar undertaking" means an undertaking engaged in the manufacture or production of sugar by means of vacuum pans and with the aid of mechanical power and "notified sugar undertaking" means a sugar undertaking in respect of which a notification has been issued under S. 3". S. 4(1) of the Act provides as below : "Assets, etc. of notified sugar undertaking (1) The notified sugar undertaking shall be deemed to include all assets, rights, powers. S. 4(1) of the Act provides as below : "Assets, etc. of notified sugar undertaking (1) The notified sugar undertaking shall be deemed to include all assets, rights, powers. authorities and privileges, in relation to the said undertaking and all property, movable and immovable, including lands, buildings, workshops, stores, instruments, machinery, automobiles and other vehicles and goods under production or in transit, cash balances, reserve funds, investments and all other rights and interests in, or arising out of, such property as were, immediately before the date of vesting in the ownership, possession, power or control of that undertaking, whether within or outside India, and all books of account, registers and all other documents of whatever nature relating thereto". S. 5(3) provides as below:- "On the appointment of a Custodian under sub-sec. (1), the charge of management of the notified sugar undertaking or group of notified sugar undertaking, as the case may be, shall vest in such Custodian and all persons in charge of the management of such undertaking or undertakings immediately before such appointment shall cease to be in charge of such management and shall be bound to deliver to the Custodian all assets, books of account, registers or other documents in their custody relating to such undertaking or group of undertakings" S. 5(6) provides as below : "Every person in charge of the management of the notified sugar undertaking, immediately before the date of vesting, shall, within ten days from that date or within such further period as the Central Government may allow in this behalf, furnish to the Custodian a complete inventory of all the properties and assets (including particulars of book debts, investments and belongings) forming part of the undertaking immediately before the date of vesting and of all liabilities and obligations of the undertaking subsisting immediately before that date and also of all agreements entered into, by the owner or manager of the undertaking, in relation to the said undertaking, and in force immediately before that date". 27. Sri Jagdish Swarup pointed out that whereas in S. 2(h)(xiii) of U.P. Act No. 23 of 1971, cash in hand, cash at Bank, advances towards any income or other tax, investments and book debts, or rights, liabilities and obligations respecting any other contract were excluded from the definition of "Scheduled Undertaking', no such exception was made in Central Act No. 49 of 1978. He pointed out that the Central Act had only taken over the -management of the Sugar Undertaking whereas the U.P. Act had acquired the same free from any liability. 28. Sri Jagdish Swarup submitted that the properties in suit admittedly belonged to plaintiff No. 1. There is no question of any dispute regarding title. The plaintiffs admittedly continued in possession of the properties up to 30th Jan. 1979 when the custodian appointed by the Central Government took over the management of the Sugar Undertaking. His contention was that as the properties in suit had nothing to do with the Scheduled Undertaking acquired under U.P. Act No. 23 of 1971 or the Sugar Undertaking of which the management was taken over by the Central Government under Central Act No. 49 of 1978. there could be no question of the Custodian having obtained possession over the disputed properties. He drew our attention to a letter sent by the Custodian to the plaintiff No. 2 in which the comments of the latter were called for in respect of a complaint made by the Secretary of the Union. It was urged that this letter also shows that the Custodian had no knowledge about the properties in suit. Had the Custodian been in possession of the properties in suit, it would not have been necessary for him to obtain the comments of plaintiff No. 2. 29. Sri Jagdish Swarup submitted that the plea of res judicata is untenable. In the earlier applications the plaintiff had claimed temporary injunction only against defendant No. 3. No temporary injunction was sought against defendant No. 5 appellant. No question between the parties was raised or decided in those applications. A temporary injunction against defendant No. 5 was sought for the first time on 2nd Nov. 1979 when the application paper No. 78-ga was given. No order had been passed against plaintiffs vis-a- vis defendant No. 5. Even if the plaintiffs had gone in appeal against the earlier orders, the same would have been pending on 30th Oct. 1979 when the Central Government rescinded the notification dated 20th Jan. 1979. The appeals would have become infructuous. In the circumstances. the earlier orders could not operate as res judicata between the parties. 30. Sri Jagdish Swarup has a grievance that the Civil Judge did not appreciate that formerly there were two companies which were amalgamated into a new company namely. 1979. The appeals would have become infructuous. In the circumstances. the earlier orders could not operate as res judicata between the parties. 30. Sri Jagdish Swarup has a grievance that the Civil Judge did not appreciate that formerly there were two companies which were amalgamated into a new company namely. M/s. Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. (P1). The amalgamated company has taken over t he assets and liabilities of the earlier two companies. The sale deeds in favour of M/s. Raza Sugar Co. Ltd. or Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. were in fact in favour of the predecessor of plaintiff No. 1 and the same could not be rejected on the flimsy ground that they are not in favour of the plaintiff No. 1. The plaintiffs also filed Articles of Association by the time the second order was passed but the Civil Judge was not prepared to appreciate the same. 31. Sri Jagdish Swarup submitted that a new situation developed on 2nd Nov. 1979 when the Central Government rescinded the taking over of the management of the Sugar Undertaking with effect from 1st Nov. 1979. The plaintiffs apprehended that defendant No. 5 may take over possession of the disputed properties also on the pretext that they belonged to Scheduled Undertaking and for this reason the application for temporary injunction was given. 32. Sri Jagdish Swarup emphasised that defendant No. 6 appellant is not entitled to take possession over any property which does not fall within the purview of S. 2(h) of U.P. Act No. 23 of 1971. 33. Sri Jagdish Swarup submitted that the company was under a legal obligation to keep its Registered office at a place notified at the time of incorporation. He referred to S. 146 of the Indian Companies Act. He stated that two rooms in Hari Bhavan were used for the Registered office of the Company. He had a grievance that defendant No. 5 wrongfully dispossessed the plaintiffs of these two rooms and also took away the account books. 34. Sri Jagdish Swarup submitted that S. 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948, defines 'factory as any premises including the precincts thereof. He urged that 'lands and buildings held or occupied for the purposes of factory in S. 2(h)(vi) of U.P. Act No. 23 of 1971, could only relate to 'lands and buildings held or occupied for the purposes of factory' within the precincts of the factory. He urged that 'lands and buildings held or occupied for the purposes of factory in S. 2(h)(vi) of U.P. Act No. 23 of 1971, could only relate to 'lands and buildings held or occupied for the purposes of factory' within the precincts of the factory. The properties in suit are outside the precincts of the factory and do not fall within the definition of "Scheduled Undertaking" as given in S. 2(h) of the Act. 35. Sri Jagdish Swarup lastly submitted that properties in suit are not part of the 'Scheduled Undertaking' acquired by the U.P. State Government and exclusively belong to plaintiff No. 1. The Civil Judge was thus justified in passing the impugned order. 36. Sri Rishi Ram reiterated the arguments advanced earlier. He denied that the Company had any office in the Hari Bhavan. He stated that it is wrong to say that defendant No. 5 dispossessed the plaintiffs of 2 rooms in Hari Bhavan. 37. Plaintiff No. 1 was the owner of the disputed properties prior to 3rd July 1971 when U.P. Ordinance No. 13 of 1971 was passed. Properties which fall within the definition of 'Scheduled Undertaking' given in S. 2(h) of U.P Act No. 23 of 1971 alone shall be deemed to have vested in the U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. (D-5). The rest of the properties would continue to belong to plaintiff No. 1. 38. There is at all (sic) question for determination at the time of trial. The Civil Judge could not decide the complicated question of title in a summary proceeding. He ought to have however recorded a specific finding regarding possession in respect of each item of properties in suit. He could have treated plaintiffs' possession as prima facie proof of title for the purposes of deciding the application for temporary injunction. He, however, held that until both parties adduced oral or documentary evidence. it could not be said with certainty that defendant No. 5 is in possession of the properties in suit. He did not take into account that the plaintiffs do not specifically plead their possession in the application dated 2nd Nov. 1979. Balance of convenience and irreparable injury may be in favour of plaintiffs. The Civil Judge could not, however, grant a temporary injunction on the basis of balance of convenience or irreparable injury without recording a finding regarding plaintiffs possession. 1979. Balance of convenience and irreparable injury may be in favour of plaintiffs. The Civil Judge could not, however, grant a temporary injunction on the basis of balance of convenience or irreparable injury without recording a finding regarding plaintiffs possession. The order directing the parties to maintain status quo is highly vague. It is desirable that injunction orders should he specific and clear so that parties may know their position. 'Status quo can mean anything to anyone. This vague order has given rise to several proceedings for disobedience of injunction order. 39. We are unable to agree with Sri Jagdish Swarup that only such properties which lie within the precincts of the factory premises could come within the definition of 'Scheduled Undertaking' in S. 2(h) of U.P. Act No. 23 of 1971. S. 2(h)( vi) of the Act specifically includes all lands (other than lands occupied for purposes of cultivation and grove lands) and buildings held or occupied for the purposes of that factory. There is no express or implied restriction that the property should be within the precincts of the factory. 40. We accept the contention of Sri Jagdish Swarup that orders dated 9-8-79 and 29-8-79 dismissing application for injunction against defendant No. 3 do not iperate as res judicata vis-a-vis the application for injunction dated 2nd Nov. 1979 against defendants Nos. 4 and 5. The matter was not between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title. Defendants Nos. 4 and 5 do not claim under the same title as defendant No. 3. 41. We may clarify that application for temporary injunction was only in respect of properties at serial Nos. 1 to 7 of Para 10 of the plaint. The plaint was amended subsequently and 5 more items of property were added. The application for temporary injunction did not include these items of property. 42. As far as property at serial No. 1 Jai Bhavan is concerned. it is not disputed that plaintiff No. 2 has been in possession of the same. 43. As far as properties at serial Nos. 2 and 7 are concerned, property at serial No. 7 is part of property at serial No. 2. An application for disobedience of ad interim injunction order was given in respect of one room in Hari Bhavan. it is not disputed that plaintiff No. 2 has been in possession of the same. 43. As far as properties at serial Nos. 2 and 7 are concerned, property at serial No. 7 is part of property at serial No. 2. An application for disobedience of ad interim injunction order was given in respect of one room in Hari Bhavan. F.A.F.O. No. 502 of 1982 was filed against the order passed in that case. The validity of the injunction order in respect of one room is being decided in F.A.F.O. No. 552 of 1982. Sri Jagdish Swarup did not dispute that defendant No.5 is in possession of the remaining portion of property at serial No. 2. The plaintiffs have claimed the relief of possession in the alternative and they will get their remedy. 44. As far as properties at Sr. Nos. 3 to 6 are concerned, the parties may produce evidence on the question of possession. Under S. 4(1) of Central Act No. 49 of 1978, the Custodian was to obtain possession over all properties, movable or immovable, as were immediately before the date of vesting in the ownership, possession, power or control of undertaking, whether within or outside India Plaintiffs may lead evidence to show that they continued in possession of the properties even after 30th Jan. 1979, managed the same and realised the rent and profits. Defendant No. 5 can lead evidence to show that the Custodian obtained possession over the properties on 30th Jan. 1979, managed the same and realised rent and profits. All properties of the undertaking which were in the possession of the Custodian on 2nd Nov. 1979 before 9 A.M. came in the possession of defendant No. 5. There can be no injunction-order till such time as the Court decides this matter on the evidence adduced by the parties. 45. We may clarify that the Custodian obtained possession over some properties and handed over possession of the same to defendant No. 5. this will be relevant for the purposes of deciding the temporary injunction matter. This will not prejudice the rights of parties at the time of final hearing. Only properties which fall within the definition of 'Scheduled Undertaking' as given in S. 2(h) of U.P. Act No. 23 of 1971 shall be deemed to have vested in the U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. (D-5). 46. The appeal is allowed. This will not prejudice the rights of parties at the time of final hearing. Only properties which fall within the definition of 'Scheduled Undertaking' as given in S. 2(h) of U.P. Act No. 23 of 1971 shall be deemed to have vested in the U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. (D-5). 46. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Application for temporary injunction in respect of property at serial No. 4 Jai Bhavan is allowed. Application for temporary injunction in respect of properties at serial Nos. 2 and 7, except one room of Hari Bhavan in respect of which F.A.F.O. No. 552 of 1982 was filed. is dismissed. The case is remanded for a fresh disposal of the application in respect of properties at serial Nos. 3 to 6 of para 10 of the plaint in the light of the directions given above. The costs will be easy. 47. Let the record of the case be sent to the Civil Judge. Rampur forthwith. The Civil Judge will decide the injunction matter preferably within 2 months of the receipt of the record. The Civil Judge will also expedite the disposal of the suit.