1. This appeal and Appeal No. 263 of 1926 arise out of two different suits which were tried together, for the sake of convenience, the parties to the two suits being practically the same.
2. The suits related to money said to have been recoverable by the Kanyakubja Bank of India, Ltd., now gone into liquidation and represented by the Official Liquidator, Mr. Murli Manoher Dikshit. To these suits were made parties not only the principal debtor, Ram Saran Singh, but also his son, his brother and his nephews. The claim was based on the ground that Ram Saran Singh obtained the money to carry on the business of a certain firm in which the whole family were interested. The suits substantially succeeded, and the son and the relations of Ram Saran Singh have appealed.
3. The appellants have not printed any evidence worth the name. The result is that the learned Counsel for the appellants is not in a position to lay the evidence before us on the basis of which the learned Judge decreed the suit in p Article We were told that the appellants were not bound, under the rules of the Court, to print any evidence on which the respondent might rely. Rule 25 of Chap. IX of the Rules of the Court was referred to. That rule simply says that parties are to apply for printing of their evidence. Where a decree has gone against a party and where that party wants to satisfy an Appellate Court that the decree should not have gone in the way it has gone, it is the duty of that party, namely, the appellant, to lay before the Court all the evidence on which the decree has been based. In this view the appellant is bound to print all those documents which have to be laid before the Court for his success. This view was pronounced by a Bench of this Court in Laiq Singh v. Jagdish Singh : AIR1927All62 so early as the 15th June, 1926. It is a published decision, and we entirely agree with what has been said in that case.
4. As a matter of indulgence, we were prepared to allow the learned Counsel for the appellants to argue on the manuscript record; but the learned Counsel is handicapped by the fact that he does not possess any copies of the depositions or documents. We could not allow him to use the record with nothing before us. Our proposal was that the record should be before us and the learned Counsel should argue from such copies of the record as might be in his possession. Even this indulgence--for this was nothing but an indulgence--was of no use to the appellants for the reason already stated.
5. A request was made that time should be given to the appellants to type and get translated portions of the record. This means that an appeal, which has already been pending for nearly four years, should be further delayed. To this proposal we could not agree.
6. The result is that the appeal fails for what may be described as want of prosecution, and is hereby dismissed with costs.