Florrie Edridge vs Rustomji Dhanjibhoy Sethna on 9 October, 1933
34. It has been argued on behalf of the plaintiff company that the appellant by not objecting to this improper procedure at the time, had waived the irregularity, and their conduct also shows that they impliedly agreed to such procedure being adopted. This case of waiver and implied agreement involves questions of law and fact and in the absence of specific pleading and specific issue, such pleas cannot be allowed to be raised (see Florrie Edridge v. Rustomji Danjibhoy and the Supreme Court case already referred to at page 633 .