Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Ajit Sharma, AOR Mr. Aditya Vikram Singh, Adv. Mr. A. Renganath, Adv. Mr. Akshat Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amrit Pradhan, Adv. Dr. Sandeep Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Adv. Ms. Misha Rohatgi, Adv. Mr. Joel, AOR Ms. Raj Sarit Khare, Adv. Mr. K. V. Viswanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. R. Arunadhri Iyer, AOR Mr. Shravanth Arya Tandra, Adv. Mr. Deepak Raj, Adv. Mr. Sivagnanam K., Adv. Mr. Vikram Hegde, AOR

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the judgment:

• Remedy for Rejected Plaint: If a plaint is rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the only remedy is to file a fresh plaint within the parameters of Order VII Rule 13; the question of presenting the same plaint before an appropriate court does not arise (!) (!) .
• Prohibition on Split Jurisdiction: Courts should not allow a litigant to use one court for temporary reliefs and another court for permanent reliefs (!) (!) (!) .
• Classification of Suit: The suit falls under Section 16(d) CPC as it involves the determination of any right to or interest in immovable property, despite the appellants' attempt to frame reliefs as purely personal (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• Nature of Reliefs: The suit seeks both declaratory and injunctive reliefs, including restraining defendants from handing over possession of immovable properties, which necessitates inquiry into rights, title, and interest (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• Outcome of Appeals: The appeals are partly allowed; the portion of the High Court's order allowing the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is set aside, while the portion allowing the applications under Order VII Rule 10 CPC is confirmed (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• Liberty to File Fresh Suit: The appellants are granted liberty to represent the plaint before the jurisdictional court at Bengaluru within a period of four weeks (!) (!) (!) .