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

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED May an appeilate Court set up thar , A cose must be dismissed for lack of Payment of an ‘undertaking’ voen appeal, Wren said undestaking was not allowed — in the first place— wherefare the lower Court Would, wan Pespondents aler the fact of an oppeal's mitiahen, claim that aM Width aKing, sum of morey was de ty Hom, 3 decide thot Saud MAdertak ing WAS Wawd — nOting Tha ap pellawt Opkcrans had wok posted any Undertakro Cor pone Would ever have been required | ae Yew in lignt of Perihence's poverty = 2. Moy +he posting of an udertaking thar ig deemed wawed /wawable be a wiley Muwavalle jusisdichenal Tegirenent (‘not a Wick 5 questian~ an Weakenal ove begged heen):