(1) A lawsuit for cessation of work is categorised among possession actions aimed at securing a property and safeguarding the inherent real rights associated with it, with the overarching objective of preventing harm to the lawful holder of a deed. The authority to order the cessation of work lies within the purview of the Magistrate of Summary Justice, subject to the specific conditions prescribed for such interventions.

The right to initiate a lawsuit for the establishment of facts and the cessation of work is vested in the plaintiff, contingent upon fulfilment of the requisite legal prerequisites. The Court of Summary Justice retains the authority to relocate to the pertinent premises for inspection, either sua sponte or in response to a request from either party or a concerned party apprehensive of losing evidence pertaining to an event. In pursuit of this objective, the court is empowered to appoint one of its judges or an expert to conduct the necessary inspection.

Inspection and expertise are regarded as direct methods of proof. The reason for that. Their meaning. Physical examination of the subject matter in dispute. These methods can be employed either as part of an original lawsuit, or they may occur in the course of a substantive lawsuit already before the court.

The jurisdiction of the Summary Justice in lawsuits seeking the cessation of works. Conditions thereof. The reason for that.

Immediate risk assessment falls within the purview of the trial court".

The appellant contends that there existed justifiable grounds for the urgent lawsuit, citing elements such as urgency, real danger, and apprehension of losing the property's distinctive features. Meritorious defence. However, both the appealed ruling and, consequently, the contested ruling failed to adequately examine and scrutinise these aspects. This renders the judgment deficient in reasoning, in breach of the right of defence and in violation of the law.

Whereas in the facts of the case, the plaintiff-appellant initiated legal action by filing a grievance with the court of first instance against the defendants-respondents. The grievance pertained to the rejection of the appellant's request presented to the Court of Summary Justice, seeking an injunction to halt new works being undertaken by the neighbour on the property. The appellant demanded a summary judgment ordering the cessation of these new works and asserted legal obligations concerning the property's wall, emphasising his rights in the said property located in the Emirate of [Name], as detailed in the statement of claim.

On 12/10/2020, the Court of First Instance rendered a summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff's grievance and imposing costs upon him.

Subsequently, the plaintiff-appellant pursued an appeal against this ruling.

In a session held on 23/2/2021, the Court of Appeal upheld the initial decision, rejecting the appeal and confirmed the appealed ruling.

The appellant subsequently filed a cassation appeal against the ruling of the Court of Appeal. The cassation appeal was deemed valid for consideration by the panel convened in a Council Chamber, and a session was scheduled to hear it, with due notice provided to the concerned parties. The present session has been convened to pronounce the ruling.

The appellant raises several objections against the contested ruling, including errors in the application and interpretation of the law, violation of documented facts, flaws in inference, deficiencies in reasoning, and a breach of the right of defence. The primary contention is that the rejection of the request to halt new works was grounded in a purported lack of jurisdiction, along with its legal justifications, which mandates the reversal of the contested ruling.

This objection is found to have merits, since is prescribed by law that the Magistrate of Summary Justice is vested with the authority to halt new works should they pose a threat to an established right delineated by law, agreement, or prevailing customary practice. This intervention is warranted to prevent actual harm that may become irremediable in the future due to the potential loss of contested landmarks, the property and consequential effects, leading to the inability to substantiate the right over time. A lawsuit seeking the cessation of such works is categorised among actions aimed at securing a property and safeguarding the inherent real rights associated with it, with the overarching objective of preventing harm to the lawful holder of a deed. Further, is prescribed by law that the right to inspection, filing a lawsuit for the establishment of facts, and requesting the cessation of new works belongs to the plaintiff, provided they meet the requisite legal conditions.

The Court of Summary Justice, either at the request of one of the litigants or sua sponte, is empowered to decide on relocating to the pertinent premises to inspect the disputed matter. The court may also designate one of its judges for this purpose and specify the date and venue of the inspection in its decision. A comprehensive report detailing all aspects of the inspection is prepared by the court or the assigned judge. Additionally, the court or its assigned judge may engage the services of an expert to assist in the inspection and may summon relevant witnesses as deemed necessary. Those witnesses may be summoned by request, even verbally, from the court's clerk. Moreover, any party concerned about the potential loss of features related to a disputed incident may, through standard means, petition the Magistrate of Summary Justice to conduct an inspection. Also, is prescribed, as per ruling of the Federal Supreme Court, that both inspection and expertise are acknowledged as direct methods of proof. This acknowledgment is grounded in their inherent physical connection to the fact intended to be proven.

The term "inspection" refers to the court's direct visual examination of the subject matter in dispute. These methods of proof, whether through inspection or expertise, may be employed either as part of an original lawsuit, specifically initiated for the establishment of facts (lawsuit for establishment of fact), or in the context of a dispute presented in a substantive lawsuit before the court. In both instances, the assessment and interpretation of technical reports generated through inspection or expertise fall within the purview of the trial court. Moreover, it is prescribed, as per ruling of the Federal Supreme Court, that the legislator, subsequent to outlining the general conditions for the jurisdiction of summary justice, specifically urgency and non-prejudice to the origin of the right, has vested summary justice with jurisdiction over claims seeking the cessation of works. However, this jurisdiction is contingent upon specific conditions, including that the subject property of the requested procedure is either movable or real estate, and a dispute has arisen with its possessor. Furthermore, it is a prerequisite that the substantive right, whether ownership or usufruct, in that property has not been definitively established. In both scenarios, the petitioner shall provide reasonable justifications in their request for action on the property, instilling a genuine fear of the imminent manifestation of direct harm unless appropriate measures are taken. This is particularly relevant when seeking to prevent actual harm that might become inevitable in the future due to the loss of landmarks in dispute, the passage of time, and the inability to substantiate the right due to temporal changes and loss of features. If such cases were to be heard by ordinary courts, the features in question could undergo alterations over time, either increasing or decreasing. This condition aligns with the general requirement for the jurisdiction of summary justice, specifically the condition of urgency. In this context, urgency implies the apprehension of potential harm to the substantive right unless the petitioner or interested party secures temporary protection. It is crucial to note that the ongoing substantive dispute does not preclude the petitioner from seeking Summary Justice, regardless of its current existence. However, the interested party shall demonstrate to the Magistrate of Summary Justice that the ongoing dispute will not be conclusively resolved through judgment or consent before the lawsuit is instituted. Additionally, It is prescribed, as per ruling of the court, that the assessment of immediate danger or just cause for the imposition of legal procedures is an independent prerogative of the trial court, provided it is valid and acceptable. In the present case, the present case, the plaintiff-appellant asserted the existence of the urgency element and the actual and imminent danger jeopardising the right to be protected, namely the specified property. This assertion was substantiated by official documents issued by the Sharjah Municipality, the Real Estate Registration Department, and the Planning and Survey Department of the Government of Sharjah. The urgency of the lawsuit, along with its legal conditions, centred on the cessation of new works, imminent danger, and the fear of losing property features as the desired outcome. However, the contested ruling failed to acknowledge and investigate this meritorious defence to the extent required, a deficiency in reasoning and a breach of the right of defence. Furthermore, the reasons provided in the ruling were insufficient to substantiate its conclusions. The contested ruling, lacking awareness of these crucial aspects, is deemed to have erred in comprehending the factual circumstances and evaluating the evidence. This deficiency in reasoning, coupled with the failure to scrutinise the elements of urgency and danger, results in a violation of the law. Consequently, the reversal of the contested ruling is warranted without delving into the remaining grounds for cassation, and the case necessitates remand for further consideration.