Devinder Gupta ( 1 ) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Appellant/plaintiff has challenged the order passed on 28/07/1999 by learned Single Judge on the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2. ( 2 ) FEELING satisfied that the plaintiff/appellant was entitled to an ex-parte ad- interim order of injunction. Learned Single Judge while restraining both the parties from alienating, transferring the suit property bearing No. 21, Rajendra Park, New Delhi also placed a restraint with respect to property bearing No. 36/6, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi, alleged to be in the name of the wife of the plaintiff. Property bearing No. 36/6, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi is not the subject-matter of the suit, though a reference has been made by the plaintiff in the plaint that this property is 270 owned by his wife, who is also recorded as an owner in the records maintained by the appropriate Authorities. ( 3 ) WE are of the view that while exercising discretion of granting ex-parte ad- interim order of injunction learned Single Judge acted arbitrarily by putting a restraint on the property of the wife of the plaintiff which was not the subject-matter of the suit. As such later part of the impugned order cannot be sustained. ( 4 ) CONSEQUENTLY the appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed on 28/07/1999 by learned Single Judge insofar as it relates to property bearing No. 36 / 6, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi is set aside. It is made clear that in case any counter claim is filed by the opposite party with respect to this property, it will then be open to seek appropriate relief from learned Single Judge in accordance with law and in case such claim is raised it will be decided in accordance with law.