(1) THIS appeal by special leave is directed against an order of the Gujarat High court dated 26/09/1974. (2) A suit was filed by the respondents for possession of the suit premises against the appellant on the ground that the appellant was a licensee. The suit was contested by the appellant. On the pleadings of the parties as many as eight issues were framed by the trial court. Both the parties had led oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their case. The trial court decreed the suit. The appellant aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial court filed an appeal before the High court. The High court by the impugned order dismissed the appeal by one word "Dismissed." (3) AGGRIEVED against the aforesaid order of the High court, the appellant has come in appeal before this court. (4) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and in our view the High court was wrong in dismissing the appeal by one word "Dismissed" without going into the merits of the case. It was a matter which was con- tested by the defendant, many issues were framed and parties had led oral as well as documentary evidence. The defendant had gone in first appeal to the High court and it was the duty of the High court to have decided the matter on merits as it was a final court of appeal on facts. It was contended by learned counsel for the respondents that it was not necessary for the High Court to give detailed reasons inasmuch as the High Court had upheld the order of the trial court. Reliance in support of the above contention is placed on Girija Nandini Devi v. Bijendra Narain Choudhury. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appel- lant has placed reliance on unreported decision of this Court in Rajan Textiles Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Rampratap Udyoggamuha. (5) EVEN if first appellate court affirms the findings of the trial court, it is its duty to record its reasons in brief for doing so. It is all the more necessary in a case where such court is a final court of finding of fact and where the judgment of the trial court based on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence is seriously challenged by a contesting party. It is all the more necessary in a case where such court is a final court of finding of fact and where the judgment of the trial court based on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence is seriously challenged by a contesting party. In the facts of the present case, we are of the confirmed view that the High Court was totally wrong in dismissing the appeal by one word "Dismissed". The facts of the case in Girija Nandini Devi v. Bijendra Narain Choudhuiy are totally distinguishable and in any case this authority even does not support the contention that the regular First appeal could have been dismissed by the High court by one word "Dismissed". (6) IN the result we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court dated 26/09/1974 and remand the appeal to the High Court for fresh disposal according to law. In view of the fact that it is an old matter, the High court is requested to dispose of the appeal at the earliest. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs in this court. s