Certainly. Based on the legal principles and reasoning in the provided document, the paragraph numbers you should highlight are:

• (!) — for the discussion that the absence of a specific order on the application for leave to dispense with notice does not automatically invalidate the proceedings, especially when conduct indicates implied waiver.

• (!) — to emphasize that the defendants did not raise any objection or challenge regarding the non-passing of the order on the application, reinforcing the implied waiver.

• (!) — for the explanation that the defendants' pleadings did not amount to an explicit or deemed waiver, but their conduct and participation suggest implied waiver.

• (!) — to support the point that the conduct of the defendants, participating in proceedings without objection, indicates waiver of the notice requirement.

• (!) — to illustrate that procedural irregularities, such as not passing an order, do not necessarily affect the jurisdiction or merits if conduct indicates waiver.

• (!) — for the reasoning that procedural irregularities do not affect the case's merits or jurisdiction when there is implied waiver.

• (!) — to reinforce that procedural defects, like not issuing notice, do not warrant remand if conduct suggests waiver and the case should be decided on merits.

These paragraphs collectively support your argument that the defendants' conduct amounted to an implied waiver of the notice requirement under Section 80, and that the case should be decided on its merits rather than on procedural technicalities.