Order I.A. No. 6901 of 2016 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in this interlocutory application which has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 394 days for restoration of civil miscellaneous petition being C.M.P. No. 381 of 2013 filed for restoration of M.A. No. 304 of 2009 which was dismissed for default due to non-prosecution. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the delay was not intentional and Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 381/2013 was dismissed on 01.05.2015 because of non-appearance of counsel and after coming to his knowledge, the present civil miscellaneous petition for restoration is filed. 3. What is apparent from the submissions advanced and the materials on record is that Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed for default, for the restoration of it another Civil Miscellaneous Petition was filed, which was also dismissed for default, and the present Petition is for the restoration of C.M.P. No. 381 of 2013. 4. From the plain reading of the interlocutory application, it is evident that no cogent reason has been assigned for condoning the delay in filing the instant civil miscellaneous Petition for restoration. This is not the first time, as the earlier civil miscellaneous petition which was dismissed, was also filed for restoration of Miscellaneous Application. 5. No party can have an unlimited draught on court time. According to Halsbury’s law of England, the main object of law of limitation are as follows: I. Long dormant claim has more cruelty than justice in them. II. A defendant might have lost the evidence to dispute the said claim. III. A person with only good cause of actions should pursue them. The doctrine of limitation and prescription are based on: I. The right which are not exercised for a long time, are said to be nonexistent. II. The right which are related to property and rights which are in general should not be in a state of constant uncertainty, doubt and suspense. 6. In the present case, in absence of any cogent reason for condonation of delay, this Court is of the view that interlocutory application for condonation of delay does not deserve to be allowed and, accordingly, stands rejected. Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed as time barred. I.A. No. 6901 of 2016 also stands dismissed.