As per case facts, the petitioner, associated with Raj Vidya Kender (RVK), alleged that an unauthorized body was running RVK and that litigation, specifically CS (OS) 470/2019, was initiated without ... proper authorization. The petitioner also claimed that advocates represented RVK based on instructions from fictitious individuals and engaged in professional misconduct. The petitioner filed multiple applications in the civil suit and complaints with the Bar Council of Delhi, all of which were dismissed, with costs imposed in some instances. The petitioner's challenges were repeatedly dismissed by a Single Judge, a Division Bench, and the Supreme Court. The question arose whether the High Court should entertain these new petitions from the petitioner, given the extensive prior litigation and dismissals. Finally, the High Court found no reason to entertain the petitions, noting the issues regarding authorization fell under the Civil Court's jurisdiction, and the Bar Council of Delhi had already dismissed the professional misconduct complaints. The court emphasized that the petitioner's contentions were repeatedly examined and rejected by various courts, including the Supreme Court, and noted the petitioner's pattern of re-agitating conclusively determined issues while suppressing material facts.