CS(OS) 344/2020 Page 1 of 16

$~J-1

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment Reserved on: 15.05.2026

Judgment Delivered on: 08.07.2026

+ CS(OS) 344/2020 and I.A. 10463/2020, I.A. 12458/2022, I.A.

12459/2022, I.A. 21097/2022, I.A. 3087/2023, CRL.M.A.

5747/2023, I.A. 8557/2023, I.A. 24514/2023 & I.A. 3061/2026

RAKESH SACHDEVA .....Plaintiff

Through: Mr. Biraja Mahapatra and Mr. Abhay

Singh, Advocates.

versus

RAJESH SACHDEVA .....Defendant

Through: Mr. T.K. Ganju, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Vivek Singh, Ms. Kirti Mewar,

Ms. Kriti Sharma and Mr. Kartik

Shoukeen, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

JUDGMENT

VIKAS MAHAJAN , J

I.A. 580/2023 (under XII Rule 6 read with Order VII Rule 11 read with

Section 151 CPC by the defendant)

1. The facts in brief as borne out from the record are that the captioned

suit was filed by the plaintiff on 06.11.2020 claiming ownership of the entire

property comprising of basement, ground floor, first and second floors at

B/1/2, Pramod Mahajan Marg, Saket, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as

‘the building’] on the plea of adverse possession.

2. Subsequently, the plaintiff moved an amendment application under

Order VI Rule 17 CPC and thereby explicitly abandoned the plea of

CS(OS) 344/2020 Page 2 of 16

ownership by hostile and adverse possession, and in the amended plaint, the

plaintiff prayed only for recovery of possession of the ‘ground floor’ of

building [hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’] under Section 6 of the

Specific Relief Act, 1963 [in short, ‘Act’], not on the basis of his title, but

only on the ground that he was allegedly dispossessed illegally on

26.10.2020.

3. The amended plaint which has been placed on record seems to have

been signed and verified in February, 2021. The defendant filed his written

statement to the amended plaint taking, inter alia, a preliminary objection

that the suit is barred by limitation as there is sufficient material on record to

suggest that the defendant is in continuous uninterrupted possession of the

suit property for a long period, not less than six months from the alleged

dispossession.

4. Later on, the defendant filed the present application under order VII

Rule 11 read order XII Rule 6 CPC seeking rejection of plaint in terms of

the admission of the plaintiff and further praying for passing a judgment

thereby dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.

5. It is alleged in the application that the defendant is the recorded owner

of the suit property. It is further stated that the defendant/applicant has filed

a suit for recovery of possession and mesne profit being CS-DJ

No.9302/2016, titled as Rajesh Sachdeva v. Rakesh Sachdeva, against the

plaintiff herein with respect to the recovery of possession of first floor,

second floor and basement of the building and the remaining portion of the

said property, except ground floor, front and back open yard and terrace,

which were always in possession of the defendant/applicant.

6. It is stated that in the aforesaid civil suit i.e. CS-DJ No.9302/2016, the

CS(OS) 344/2020 Page 3 of 16

defendant/applicant moved an application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC for

bringing the registered lease deed dated 20.08.2015 qua the ground floor

(i.e. the suit property) on judicial record for the purpose of proving the

prevailing rate of rent based on which the defendant/applicant could claim

mesne profit in the said suit. The relevant para 3 of the application, reads

thus:

“3. That in order to prove damages, the plaintiff places

reliance upon the lease deed dated 20.08.2015 executed by the

plaintiff himself in favour of one Ms. Shobha Rani Gupta,

Advocate in respect of the ground floor of the property in

question. The said lease deed has been duly registered in the office

of Sub-Registrar vide registration No. 4758 in Book No.I, Volume

No. 1144, pages 158 to 169.”

(emphasis supplied)

7. In reply to the said application, filed by the plaintiff herein on

15.04.2017, particularly in para 1 of the preliminary objections, it was

specifically pleaded as follows:

“1. That the answering defendant is in possession of the ground

floor of the property since 31.10.87 as it was handed over by Shri

Bhagwan Din as explained in WS. Defendant permitted his parents

to occupy and use the ground floor of the said property out of love

and affection. Mother of the defendant expired on 18.01.2015.

Defendant never asked his father to vacate the ground floor due to

his old age. On seeing this document the defendant is shocked to

note that plaintiff had illegally & unlawfully leased the said floor.

Defendant reserves his right to seek possession back in

accordance with law and shall soon begin/initiate the process.”

(emphasis supplied)

8. It is the case of the defendant/applicant that by way of reply filed by

the plaintiff herein, who is the defendant in the said suit, a categorical

admission has been made admitting that the possession of the suit property

CS(OS) 344/2020 Page 4 of 16

i.e. ground floor of the building was not with the plaintiff at least on or

before 15.04.2017, and accordingly, the plaintiff sought to reserve his right

to seek possession back in accordance with law.

9. It is stated in the present application that certified copy of the

application dated 20.10.2016 filed by the defendant/applicant under Order

VII Rule 14 CPC in the aforesaid suit i.e. CS-DJ No.9302/2016, as well as,

the reply thereto dated 15.04.2017 filed by the plaintiff herein, have been

placed on record along with the written statement.

10. Mr. T.K Ganju, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the

defendant/applicant submits that the present suit, filed in November 2020, is

barred by limitation. He further submits that a suit under Section 6 of the

Act must be filed within six months of dispossession, whereas the plaintiff's

own admission in the reply dated 15.04.2017 before the Ld. ADJ establishes

that he was not in possession of the ground at least as on said date.

11. He contends that the defendant is the sole, absolute, and lawful owner

of the building including the suit property by virtue of sale deed dated

06.12.1990 and conveyance deed dated 01.02.2001, and that the Defendant

had permitted the plaintiff, who is his brother, a permissive use of the

building, which does not include the ground floor, for his residence, on

purely a license basis without any consideration, in view of the close

relationship between the parties.

12. He further contends that subsequently, the relationship between the

parties got strained, inter alia, on account of the ill-treatment of parents of

the parties by the plaintiff. The father of the parties published public notices

in daily newspapers, thereby disowned and severed all relations with the

plaintiff and even made his wish that plaintiff/Rakesh Sachdeva should not

CS(OS) 344/2020 Page 5 of 16

lit his pyre.

13. He submits that on account of above, defendant had terminated the

license of the Plaintiff vide notice dated 15.06.2009 and subsequently, filed

a suit, being CS DJ No. 9302/2016, for Decree of possession, Permanent

injunction and mesne profits against the plaintiff in respect of the Basement,

First and Second Floors of the Building. The ground floor of the building, at

all times, was in the exclusive occupation, possession and under the lock and

key of the Defendant.

14. He argues that the plaintiff deliberately concealed material facts, and

the proceedings of aforesaid suit [CS DJ No. 9302/2016], including the

pleadings of the application under order VII Rule 14 CPC, which

demonstrate that the plaintiff was never in possession of the ground floor.

15. Mr. Ganju places strong reliance on a reply dated 15.04.2017 filed by

the plaintiff to the application under Order VII Rule 14 in CS DJ No.

9302/2016, to contend that the plaintiff has categorically admitted that he

was not in possession of the ground floor at least as on 15.04.2017 and

sought to reserve his right to seek possession back in accordance with the

law.

16. He submits that the date of 26.10.2020 as the date of alleged

dispossession, that has been pleaded in the present suit, is a false and

concocted averment, deliberately inserted in the plaint to bring the suit

within limitation, whereas the admission suggests otherwise.

17. Mr. Ganju places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Ramisetty Venkatanna vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb (2024) 18 SCC

426 to contend that clever drafting creating an illusion of a cause of action

should be nipped in the bud. He also relies upon the decision of Hon’ble

CS(OS) 344/2020 Page 6 of 16

Supreme Court in Nagindas Ramdas vs. Dalpatram Ichharam (1974) 1

SCC 242 to assert that judicial admission or admissions in the pleadings, are

fully binding; and in Keshav Chander Thakur vs. Krishan Chander 2014

SCC OnLine Del 3092 to contend that the Court can pass a decree on

judicial admissions.

18. Mr Ganju further submits that the wife of the plaintiff namely, Smt.

Sadhna Sachdeva has filed a Suit No. 407/2017 before the Ld. SCJ, Saket

Courts, wherein at para 5 she categorically stated that the ground floor is in

the exclusive possession of the defendant/applicant herein, who has kept a

tenant and is realising rent. To buttress his contention he has also brought to

the attention of this Court the said para 5 of the suit filed by the plaintiff’s

wife. He further submits that the plaintiff herein in the written statement

filed by him in the said suit did not deny the said assertion. He thus,

contends that the assertion made by wife shall be deemed to have been

admitted in view of the doctrine of non-traverse as enshrined in Order VIII

Rule 5 CPC. To fortify his submission, Mr. Ganju places reliance on Lohia

Properties (P) Ltd., Tinsukia, Dibrugarh, Assam v. Atmaram Kumar,

(1993) 4 SCC 6.

19. Mr. Ganju also places reliance on the decision of the Division Bench

of this Court in Babita Pal & Ors. v. Jagdish Bansal, 2012 SCC OnLine

Del 6043, to contend that while deciding an application filed under Order

VII Rule 11 CPC, apart from the plaint and the documents filed with the

plaint, the Court can also see the documents which ought to have been filed

with the plaint but have deliberately been withheld by the plaintiff.

20. Elaborating further, he submits that the pleadings of the application

under Order VII Rule 14 CPC filed by the defendant/applicant in CS-DJ

CS(OS) 344/2020 Page 7 of 16

No.9302/2016, as well as, the pleadings of the Suit No.407/2017 before the

learned SCJ, Saket Courts, New Delhi filed by the plaintiff’s wife, were

material for the purpose of deciding the issue of limitation in the present

case and the same have deliberately been withheld by the plaintiff, therefore,

this Court could look into the said documents while deciding the present

application.

21. Per contra, Mr. Biraja Mahaptra, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the plaintiff vehemently opposes the application and submits that the suit

was filed well within the limitation period.

22. He submits that the plaintiff has specifically pleaded in the plaint that

the cause of action arose on 26.10.2020, when the defendant forcibly

removed the belongings of the father and seized possession of the ground

floor.

23. He contends that for the purpose of deciding the application under

Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the contents of the plaint have to be seen

which shows that the cause of action is within the period of six months, thus,

the suit is not barred by limitation.

24. He submits that the limitation is a mixed question of law and fact,

therefore, it is a triable issue necessarily requiring leading of evidence and

the same cannot be decided summarily under Order VII Rule 11 CPC or

under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. In support of his contention, he places reliance

on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maria Margarida

Sequeira Fernandes and Ors. v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (Dead)

Through LRs. (2012) 5 SCC 370.

25. He submits that the reply of the plaintiff to the application of the

defendant/applicant under Order VII Rule 14 CPC filed in CS-DJ

CS(OS) 344/2020 Page 8 of 16

No.9302/2016, if read as a whole, would reveal that there is no clear and

unequivocal admission.

26. He places reliance on the decision in Balraj Taneja and Anr v. Sunil

Madan and Anr. (1999) 8 SCC 396, as well as, the decision in Nisha

Chandola v. Manoj Sharma (2026) SCC OnLine Del 1206, to contend that

admission has to be clear and unequivocal for the court to pass a judgment

on admission.

27. I have heard Mr. T.K. Ganju, learned Senior Counsel for the

defendant/applicant, as well as, Mr. Biraj Mahapatra, learned counsel for the

plaintiff/non-applicant.

28. A short question which arises for consideration of this Court in the

present application is that whether at this interlocutory stage, the plaintiff

could be non-suited only on the ground of limitation.

29. As noted above, the suit has been filed by the plaintiff under Section 6

of the Act seeking possession of the suit property. To appreciate the limited

controversy, relevant would it be to extract Section 6 of the Act, which reads

as follows:

“6. Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property.—

(1) If any person is dispossessed without his consent of

immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he

or any person claiming through him may, by suit, recover

possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may

be set up in such suit.

(2) No suit under this section shall be brought—

(a) after the expiry of six months from the date of

dispossession; or

(b) against the Government.

(3) No appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any

suit instituted under this section, nor shall any review of any

CS(OS) 344/2020 Page 9 of 16

such order or decree be allowed.

(4) Nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to

establish his title to such property and to recover possession

thereof.”

(emphasis supplied)

30. A perusal of the above quoted provision makes it clear that in order to

establish the claim under Section 6 of the Act, following three things are

required to be established:

(i) The plaintiff was in possession of the suit property.

(ii) The plaintiff has been dispossessed without his consent otherwise

than in due course of law.

(iii) The suit for recovery of possession has been filed within the period of

six months from the date of the alleged dispossession.

31. The object of Section 6 of the Act is speedy disposal of cases so that

the legally ousted person is put back to possession giving liberty to other

party to sue for possession on the basis of title. However, in a suit for

possession under Section 6 of the Act, the question of title is irrelevant, and

the suit is maintainable only by virtue of previous possession.

32. Evidently, sub-section 2(a) of Section 6 bars instituting of a suit after

six months from the date of dispossession. Reference in this regard may also

be had to the decision in Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams v. K.M.

Krishnaiah, (1998) 3 SCC 331, where the plaintiff had alleged that he had

been dispossessed from the suit property and the suit for possession had

been filed beyond six months of dispossession, it was held to be not

maintainable, the same being barred by limitation. It is against this backdrop

of settled legal position that the facts of the present case have to be tested.

33. The present suit was initially filed by the plaintiff on 06.11.2020

CS(OS) 344/2020 Page 10 of 16

claiming possession of the suit property on the plea of ownership by hostile

and adverse possession. The plaint was subsequently amended, and the suit

was converted to one for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Act,

not on the basis of the title, but only on the premise that the plaintiff was

allegedly dispossessed illegally on 26.10.2020. Such amendment was

allowed vide order dated 10.02.2021 and the amended plaint came to be

filed on or about 05.02.2021.

34. In the amended plaint, the plaintiff has pleaded alleged dispossession

on 26.10.2020, however, a perusal of para 3 of the application filed by the

defendant/applicant under Order VII Rule 14 CPC in a suit for recovery of

possession and mesne profit filed by him i.e. CS-DJ No.9302/2016, shows

that it was specifically alleged therein, that the defendant/applicant herein

executed a lease deed dated 20.08.2015 in favour of one of Ms. Shobha Rani

Gupta, Advocate in respect of the suit property i.e. ground floor of the

building.

35. In reply to the said application filed by the plaintiff herein on

15.04.2017, the following stand was taken in respect of the ground floor i.e.

the suit property: “……. On seeing this document the defendant is shocked

to note that plaintiff had illegally & unlawfully leased the said floor.

Defendant reserves his right to seek possession back in accordance with law

and shall soon begin/initiate the process”. Clearly, the plaintiff referencing

to the lease deed dated 20.08.2015 executed by the defendant/applicant

herein qua the ground floor (i.e. the suit property) in favour of one Ms.

Shobha Rani Gupta, made a categorical admission in the pleadings about the

fact that he is no more in possession of the suit property and will take steps

to recover the possession thereof by taking legal recourse at the earliest.

CS(OS) 344/2020 Page 11 of 16

36. This reply was filed by the plaintiff on 15.04.2017, suggesting in

unequivocal terms that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit

property at least on, or even before, 15.04.2017.

37. The said admission made by the plaintiff herein, is clear, categorical

and unambiguous. The law is well settled that admissions in pleadings or

judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act stand

on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. Reference in this regard

may be had to the decision in Nagindas Ramdas (supra) wherein it was

observed as under:

"27.xxxxxx Admissions in pleadings or judicial admissions,

admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the

Parties or their agents at/ or before the hearing of the case, stand

on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class

of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and

constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the

foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand,

evidentiary admissions which are receivable at the trial as

evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to

be wrong. "

(emphasis supplied)

38. Indubitably, the plaint was originally filed on 06.11.2020, which is

after more than three years of above referred admission in the reply dated

15.04.2017. Based on such admission, the suit is clearly beyond the period

of six months as provided in Section 6 of the Act and is thus, barred by

limitation.

39. Mr. Biraja Mahaptra, learned counsel for the plaintiff/non-applicant

has argued that for the purpose of deciding the application under Order VII

Rule 11 CPC, only the contents of the plaint have to be seen, which in the

present case clearly shows that the dispossession of the plaintiff occurred on

CS(OS) 344/2020 Page 12 of 16

26.10.2020, therefore, the pleaded cause of action is within the period of six

months of the filing of present suit filed on 06.11.2021.

40. This Court does not, however, find favour with the submission of Mr.

Mahapatra. A Division Bench of this Court in Babita Pal (supra) has held

that for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC not only the plaint

but the documents which ought to have been filed with the plaint but were

deliberately withheld by the plaintiff can also be seen. The relevant extract

from the said decision reads thus:

“14.......It is well settled that for rejection of a plaint under

Order VII Rule 11 CPC, all that can be seen is the plaint, the

documents filed with the plaint and the documents which ought to

have been filed with the plaint but which have deliberately been

withheld by the plaintiff. The defence that the appellants may set

up in their written statement cannot be the basis of an application

under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.”

(emphasis supplied)

41. An application filed by the defendant/applicant under Order VII Rule

14 CPC in CS-DJ No.9302/2016, as well as, a reply thereto filed by the

plaintiff herein, are material documents for the purpose of deciding the

question of limitation and the same ought to have been filed by the plaintiff

with the plaint but it seems that the plaintiff deliberately withheld them and

projected an illusionary cause of action alleging that the plaintiff was

dispossessed on 26.10.2020, to bring the suit within the period of limitation.

42. Intriguingly, it is not the case of the plaintiff that after his

dispossession from the suit property i.e. ground floor, he had issued a notice

to the defendant/applicant or filed any complaint with the police. By merely

pleading an illusionary cause of action, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to

circumvent the provisions of the limitation Act, when from the admission in

CS(OS) 344/2020 Page 13 of 16

the reply to the application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC in CS-DJ

No.9302/2016 it is ex facie borne out that the suit is not within limitation.

Thus, it is not a case where the limitation could be said to be a disputed

question of fact.

43. Incidentally, the plaintiff in reply to the present application has not

even denied the fact that reply to the application under Order VII Rule 14

CPC in CS-DJ No.9302/2016 was filed by him on 15.04.2017 wherein it is

stated that he shall soon be taking steps to recover back possession of the

suit property i.e. the ‘ground floor’ of the ‘building’. Further, the plaintiff

has neither explained nor controverted in any manner the said admission

made in the reply to the application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC. He has

also not denied the existence of registered lease deed dated 20.08.2015 with

the tenant, that was specifically pleaded by the defendant/applicant in his

application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC.

44. Therefore, given the fact the application filed by the

defendant/applicant under Order VII Rule 14 CPC and the reply thereto filed

by the plaintiff, are not in dispute, it is a fit case for the Court even to

exercise powers under Order XII Rule 6 CPC on the basis of clear admission

made by the plaintiff as regard his dispossession from the suit property at

least on, or even before, 15.04.2017, and hold that the suit is barred by

limitation, even assuming arguendo that the aforesaid application and reply

thereto cannot be looked into for the purpose of rejection of plaint under

Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Notably, the present application has been filed by

the defendant/applicant by invoking both the provisions i.e. Order VII Rule

11 CPC read with Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

45. At this juncture, it would be advantageous to refer to the decision of

CS(OS) 344/2020 Page 14 of 16

the Division Bench in Keshav Chander Thakur (supra) wherein the Court

while deciding application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, though did not

entertain a plea under the said provision, but still exercised the powers under

Order XII Rule 6 CPC to suo moto pass a judgment based on pleadings and

admitted documents on record. The relevant extract from the said decision

reads thus:

“38. We concur with the view of the learned Single Judge.

However, we may like to note that the learned Single Judge has

exercised powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC while rejecting

the plaint. The scope of exercise of powers under Order VII Rule

11 CPC is limited by the contours of the provision. While

exercising those powers what has to be seen is only the averments

in the plaint and the documents filed alongwith the plaint. The

defence as taken in the written statement is not to be gone into for

the said purpose. To that extent, the judgment of the learned

Single Judge may suffer from an infirmity. However, in our view

given the nature of pleadings and admitted documents on record

and the extensive arguments advanced by the parties on the issues

discussed herein, this was a fit case for the Court to exercise

powers under Order XII Rule 6 CPC where the Court has powers

to suo moto pass a judgment. There is no requirement in Order XII

Rule 6 CPC for filing of a formal application. The Court can on its

own motion without any application by a party proceed to pass a

decree on admissions as stated in Order XII Rule 6 CPC. Order XII

Rule 6(i) CPC reads as follows : -

“6. Judgment on admissions.- (1) Where admissions of fact

have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether

orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit,

either on the application of any party or of its own motion and

without waiting for the determination of any other question

between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as

it may thing fit, having regard to such admissions.”

In our view based on the pleadings and documents placed on

record by the parties there are clear admissions of fact which

warrant passing of the order of dismissal of the plaint.”

CS(OS) 344/2020 Page 15 of 16

(emphasis supplied)

46. However, before parting, the decisions relied upon by the plaintiff

may also be adverted to. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the

plaintiff on Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes (supra) is misplaced.

The said decision primarily deals with the maintainability of a caretaker's

suit for injunction against the true owner, and importance of pleadings and

documents in a suit for possession, and the duty of courts to critically

examine pleadings and documents at the threshold. Far from assisting the

plaintiff’s case, the ratio in the said decision actually supports the

defendant’s position, inasmuch as the Hon’ble Supreme Court therein

emphatically held that courts must carefully and critically examine the

pleadings and documents, and that if the pleadings do not give sufficient

details, they will not raise an issue, and the court can reject the claim or pass

a decree on admission.

47. Likewise, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff

on Balraj Taneja (supra) is also misplaced. In this case the suit was for

specific performance in which the High Court had decreed the suit under

Order VIII Rule 10 CPC solely because the written statement had not been

filed, without any examination of the plaint, and the observation of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court’s cautioning against acting blindly upon deemed

admission was in that wholly distinct setting where there was no

independent judicial admission by the plaintiff. In contrast, in the present

case, the defendant/applicant is not invoking the doctrine of non-traverse but

there is a positive and unequivocal admission made by the plaintiff in the

proceedings before another court, which the plaintiff has not denied or

explained even in his reply to the present application.

CS(OS) 344/2020 Page 16 of 16

48. Lastly, even decision in Nisha Chandola (supra) does not assist the

plaintiff's case. The said decision was a case where the plaintiff sought

judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC on the basis of a

handwriting expert’s opinion and the alleged inconsistencies in the

defendant's written statement, and the Court dismissed the application

precisely because the averments therein did not refer to any clear and

unambiguous admission on the part of the defendant. That decision,

therefore, stands on a different footing, whereas in the present case the

defendant invokes the plaintiff’s own admission in the pleadings of the

application in another suit.

49. In view of the undisputed documents in the form of application filed

by the defendant/applicant under Order VII Rule 14 CPC and the reply

thereto filed by the plaintiff, as well as a clear admission of the plaintiff, the

application is allowed, the plaint is rejected and suit is dismissed under

Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

50. The application is disposed of.

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

JULY 08, 2026/aj