JUDGMENT 1. - For the reasons stated in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the delay in filing the second appeal is condoned. 2. On the request of the counsel for the plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter 'the plaintiff'), the matter is taken up for admission. 3. This second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been filed by the plaintiff aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 05.1.2013, passed by the Additional District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur (hereinafter 'the first appellate court'), whereby the learned first appellate court has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2008, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No.2, Jaipur District, Jaipur dismissing the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction filed against the defendants-respondents (hereinafter 'the defendants'). 4. I have heard the counsel for the plaintiff and perused the judgment and decree of the trial court as also the first appellate court. 5. The learned courts below have concurrently come to a finding of fact that the wall constructed by the plaintiff towards the west of his house was not within his lawfully acquired plot, but an encroachment over a public Chowk (square) utilised inter alia by the defendant Nos.1 & 2 and also by the public at large. The courts below have further found that aside of the encroachment over the public Chowk (square) by the plaintiff, the suit for permanent injunction as laid against the defendant Nos.1 & 2 alleging collusion between them and defendant No.3, Gram Panchayat Khawaraniji, in conspiring to break down the wall constructed by the plaintiff towards the west of his house was not maintainable in view of the embargo of Section 109 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1994'). 6. 6. In my considered opinion, the courts below have rightly held that the suit for permanent injunction was not maintainable against the Gram Panchayat Khawaraniji in view of the embargo of Section 109 of the Act of 1994 which reads as under : 109 : Suits etc., against Panchayat Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad : (1) No suit or other civil proceeding against a Panchayati Raj Institution or against any member, officer or servant thereof or against any person acting under the direction of a Panchayati Raj Institution or any member, officer or servant thereof for anything done or purporting to be done under this Act in its or his official capacity - (a) shall be instituted until the expiration of two months, after notice in writing, stating the cause of action, the name and place of abode of the intending plaintiff and the nature of the relief which he claims, has been delivered or left at its office or, in the case of a member, officer, servant or person as aforesaid, delivered to him of left at the office or at his usual place of abode, and the plaint shall in each such case contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left, or (b) shall be instituted, unless it is a suit for the recovery of immovable property or for a declaration of title thereto, otherwise than within six months after transfer next the accrual of the alleged cause of action. (2) The notice referred to in sub-section (1), when it is intended for a Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti or a Zila Parishad, shall be addressed to the Sarpanch, Vikas Adhikari or the Chief Executive Officer respectively. 7. I find no force in the submission of the counsel for the plaintiff that Panchayat was only a formal party and therefore compliance with Section 109 of the Act of 1994 was not necessary. For one, the allegations in the plaint related to the defendant Nos.1 & 2 conspiring with defendant No.3, (the Gram Panchayat) in planning to demolish the offending wall in issue. For one, the allegations in the plaint related to the defendant Nos.1 & 2 conspiring with defendant No.3, (the Gram Panchayat) in planning to demolish the offending wall in issue. Further in the event of the suit for permanent injunction being decreed as prayed for, it would have been binding on the Panchayat and acted as a restraint on it in the exercise of its power under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 to ensure that the public spaces in the Panchayat were not encroached upon. Aside of the aforesaid, the concurrent finding of the courts below that the wall in issue constructed by the plaintiff towards the west of his house was not over his own property, but was an encroachment over a public chowk (square) are findings of fact on appreciation of evidence. It is trite that the findings of the fact by the courts below until perverse are not to be interfered with by this Court in the exercise of its limited jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. In my considered opinion, a bare reading of the judgments of the courts below indicates that they are well considered judgments based on appreciation of evidence laid by the parties before the trial court. No perversity can be attributed to the finding of fact that the wall in issue constructed by the plaintiff was an encroachment over a public Chowk (square). The plaintiff thus had no right to its continued existence and thus could not be granted the permanent injunction sought. 8. Consequently, the second appeal is without force and the same is therefore dismissed summarily. Stay application also stands dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******