Mcuj (M\ AppeKa.4^ OmM^r Svf A-WoJr
ot case mRsv be cUstmsseci A-r lack of
^adUx-fa K < ia^ v^&f\ pctynwif of
(a/Wla saxc i W\dj^+aV;iiA^ w>as ko4 allows
in 4V\e Pirsrb place t^KrciWe -H^e (ovuefcm
(JsvSAr K)0l/aA, Mpar> reSrpnDAtieajhS differ ~+We
faef af
Aw w\(Ux4aKiWiWiAh&fi ) cIcl iiAA 4Ka^
(/oa& diML>a-n ^ppcjxl '5
Sum of/wwy
\o 4W\m, Wade ^Wadr Saul UA&£j4-aKI (a^
waived ^ iMO-Vii^ +Ka4- ^pellaAAAurvUJ4a^1/005
P^vW^sr W VO)V pc£>4ed cmy
ei>er WaA>e Weevw^
fo-f ce^iu red
\ujvd- of p&4rh^/u_T-s oev-er'ty
' " ^Uoc\rVOOUAdyuwe
t?f fkevw Wv
M.oy 44\e -posAin^ of LV\der4aki(A^
i/oaWed / voa.Wftb^ be a jjvt#' i/y)«mi valfl\^ jiM'^dvdbo/wt-l femdwv'^M' * ^icfe;
aw \?caW\A.r o/^. begged Wexeiid!^-2-.
l*b
in
Rge <2 o-P 1\

Whether an appellate court can dismiss a case for lack of payment of an 'undertaking' on appeal when the undertaking was not allowed in the first place