Interlocutory sale orders should not be disturbed where the process is safeguarded, near completion, and causes no prejudice.

Appellate interference with an interlocutory order regulating sale proceedings under the Special Court Act was held unwarranted because the order did not affect substantive rights, the sale process was already near completion, and no prejudice was shown. The Court noted that the mechanism included safeguards such as valuation, public notice, competitive bidding opportunities, and scrutiny by the Special Court before confirmation of sale. On that basis, the Custodian was permitted to continue conducting the sale in accordance with the Special Court's directions.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference was warranted with an interlocutory order directing the Custodian to conduct the sale of properties under the Special Court Act.

Analysis: The sale proceedings had already been underway, a public notice had been issued, and the process was nearing completion. The order under challenge did not determine any party's substantive rights. The sale mechanism also provided safeguards, including valuation, publication of notice, opportunity for bidders to enhance their offers, and scrutiny by the Special Court before confirmation of sale. In these circumstances, the appellate court found no reason to alter the manner in which the sale proceedings were being conducted.

Conclusion: Interference with the interlocutory order was not warranted, and the Custodian could continue to conduct the sale under the directions of the Special Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Appellate interference with an interlocutory order regulating sale proceedings is unwarranted where the order causes no prejudice, the sale process contains safeguards to secure the best price, and the proceedings are near completion.

---