The Delhi High Court on Thursday asked former diplomat Lakshmi Puri to respond to a petition by Trinamool Congress leader Saket Gokhale seeking recall of a judgement asking him to pay Rs 50 lakh damages to her in a defamation case, reported Live Law.

Issuing notice to Puri, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said the court would consider recalling the July verdict if Gokhale can convince the court about the delay in filing his plea.

On July 1, the High Court had ordered the Rajya Sabha MP to pay Puri, a former assistant secretary general of the United Nations, Rs 50 lakh in damages. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani also told him to publish an apology in the newspaper The Times of India and on the social media platform X within eight weeks.

In June 2021, the Rajya Sabha MP had questioned how Puri could have bought a house for 1.6 million Swiss Francs in Geneva in 2006 with her then income as a former Indian Foreign Service officer.

In his posts on X, Gokhale had also tagged Union finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman, demanding an inquiry into the matter by the Enforcement Directorate.

Subsequently, Puri, who is also the wife of Union Minister for Petroleum and Natural Gas Hardeep Singh Puri, filed a defamation case against Gokhale and sought damages to the tune of Rs 5 crore.

A month later, the High Court directed Gokhale to delete the posts and restrained him from posting any defamatory content against Puri and her husband.

In its July order, the court said that it was “extremely irresponsible of [Gokhale] to have put out derogatory content by way of the offending tweets, without due verification, thereby conveying to his entire band of followers on Twitter [now X] allegations in relation to the plaintiff’s [Lakshmi Puri] financial affairs, which are rank untrue”.

The Trinamool Congress leader had also chosen not to appear before the court, suggesting that he did not care about the outcome of the proceedings at all, the High Court noted. “On the other hand, the plaintiff [Lakshmi Puri] has assiduously pursued the matter, displaying seriousness of purpose in relation to the claim that she has made,” it added.

During the hearing on Thursday, Gokhale’s counsel argued that the ruling was issued ex parte, or in his absence, after his lawyer stopped appearing in the defamation case.

The court replied that the counsel’s absence was his responsibility, noting that he was not unaware of the court proceedings.

Puri had said in her plea that Gokhale’s claims were maliciously motivated and factually incorrect.