Okay, so you can't do it.
It's just piss poor storytelling. It's a typical case of booking a feud like an 8-year-old would on Smackdown vs Raw. First a regular match, then a hardcore match, then a cage match, then a ladder match, then a HELL IN A CELL~! Tell me, WHY should Sheamus/Orton be in a Hell in a Cell? When have they ever been super violent with each other? Does either of them have a history in HIAC, and wanted an advantage of the other? It's pathetic and lazy storytelling.
Look at an example of good storytelling: the CM Punk vs William Regal in early 2009 for the IC Title. Their first match ended when Regal was DQed, so he kept the title. The stipulation was added that if Regal got DQed, he would lose the title. That stipulation made sense given the circumstances. In the next match Regal faked being low blowed and got Punk DQed, so Punk still didn't get the title. So the stipulation of No DQ was added for their next match. That made sense, given the circumstances. In the No DQ match, Punk final won the title because the playing field was even, and the logical storytelling led to a great moment of Punk overcoming the evil champion in his hometown of Chicago. Those gimmick matches made sense.
Or how about cage matches? Big Show vs JBL at No Way Out 2005 was made a barbed-wire cage match because JBL's Cabinet kept interfering, and this kept them out. The gimmick responded specifically to the story being told. Orton vs Sheamus does not such thing.