In more trouble for N D Tiwari, the Delhi High Court directed the veteran Congress leader to file a response on why DNA test should not be conducted on him to ascertain the allegation made by a man claiming to be his biological son.

The court, which hinted that the 84-year-old leader might have to undergo DNA test to nullify the allegations in the paternity row, also sought a "specific" response on each of the more than 100 photographs in which Tiwari is seen with the young man Rohit Shekhar and his mother on various occasions since his birth.

Giving a deadline of four weeks to file response, the court said that Tiwari will have to personally appear before it in case he fails to file a written reply.

"The controversy can be settled only by examining the photographs and DNA test. If you (Tiwari) do not explain about the photographs then court would examine you in person," Justice J R Midha observed, adding "If you reply about the photograph then half of the controversy would be cleared.

"He is directed to file specific response to each of the photograph and also on the application seeking his DNA test. If not filed within four weeks then he shall have to be present in the court."

The court passed the order on a paternity suit filed by Shekhar, grandson of a former Union minister, claiming that he was born out of a relationship between his mother Ujjwala Sharma and Tiwari, a charge denied by the Congress leader and former Andhra Pradesh governor.

The counsel appearing for Tiwari pleaded the court not to pass any order as the appeal has been filed in the Supreme Court against Delhi High Court's order for agreeing to adjudicate the paternity suit.

The court, however, refused to adjourned the matter and directed Tiwari to file response within four weeks.

Tiwari had to resign from the governorship of Andhra Pradesh after he was purportedly shown to be in a compromising position with three women in a sting operation.

Earlier, the High Court had dismissed the plea of Tiwari who sought dismissal of the petition on the ground that it was filed 31 years after the petitioner was born in order to malign his character.

"Human relation cannot be treated in the same manner as commercial or civil transaction. An infidelity by a spouse is condoned by a subsequent conjugation," the court had said.

"We think that in the vicissitude of personal relations that is an untenable position to adopt. The court cannot delve into the mind of the plaintiff (Shekhar) in order to ascertain the time at which he felt that he had no alternative but to go to the extreme of moving the court which is always a point of no return," the court had said.