88 the lower tribunal can take, at the instance of the winning party or the appellee, is to dismiss the appeal taken by the losing party. That is what the NEC should have done; that is what the NEC failed to do; and as indicated above, the Supreme Court cannot be used as a substitute for the NEC or the Board of Commissioners in whom the responsibility to dismiss the appeal is vested under the circumstances stated herein the instant case. Moreover, the fact that others of the complainants determined not to pursue the appeal announced by them, does not prevent other parties to the action pursuing the appeal if they feel that they would like to have the Supreme Court make a final pronouncement on the manner in which the elections were conducted and the results announced by the NEC, particularly as to them. To hold, as advocated by the NEC, would not only be a travesty of justice but would set a bad precedent that any party to any action cannot appeal therefrom unless he or she carries the burden of the other parties to the action. That is not how the law operates and it certain is not the way the law was intended to operate. In the case before us, the bill of exceptions presented to the Board of Commissioners of the NEC challenging the decision and ruling of the NEC, was submitted only by Charles Walker Brumskine and Harrison S. Karnwea. This Court concludes that by the said action, it was only those two persons that decided to further challenge the actions, decisions and judgment of the NEC. It was therefore only those persons that were required under Section 6.8 of the Elections Law to enter into a recognizance with the NEC. We note that a party cannot enter into a recognizance with the NEC unless and until the party has submitted a bill of exceptions to the NEC and obtained the approval of the Members of the Board of Commissioners of the NEC. It is only after that submission and approval that a party is then required to enter into a recognizance with the NEC. This process is not different from the regular appeal process under the Civil Procedure Law. Under that Law, a party who challenges or disagrees with the judgment of the lower court and who desires to appeal the matter to the Supreme Court must first, after excepting to the judgment and announcing an appeal therefrom, file with the lower court a bill of exceptions duly approved by the trial judge. It is only upon the fulfilment of that condition that the party may then move to the next step of the appeal, which is the filing of an appeal bond, the equivalent to the recognizance