Short answer. Yes. Rule 59, Section 3 lets the court discharge a receiver if it is shown that the appointment was obtained without sufficient cause — a direct challenge to whether the original application was justified at all, separate from the bond-based route the same section also allows.
What the law says
The receiver may also be discharged if it is shown that his appointment was obtained without sufficient cause.
Rule 59, Section 3 — Denial of application or discharge of receiver. Read the full provision →
Two different routes to the same result
Section 3 actually offers two separate ways to end a receivership, and they work very differently. One lets the adverse party post a bond to the applicant, undertaking to pay whatever damages the applicant may suffer from the acts or matters the application relied on — this route sidesteps the merits entirely and simply substitutes a financial guarantee for the receivership. The other, the one this question is about, lets the receiver be discharged on a showing that the appointment was obtained without sufficient cause — an attack on whether the appointment should ever have happened.
What 'without sufficient cause' means
This ground goes directly at the merits of the original application. A receivership is an extraordinary remedy, granted because the applicant convinced the court that property or a business was at genuine risk and needed a neutral custodian. Showing the appointment lacked sufficient cause means demonstrating that the grounds relied on then do not actually hold up — the alleged risk was overstated, unsupported, or was never really there. It is a challenge to the receivership itself, not just a request to end it on different terms.
Why this route does not require a bond
Because this ground disputes whether the receivership should exist at all, it does not depend on the adverse party putting up security. The bond route effectively concedes that a receivership might have been warranted and offers a guarantee instead; the no-sufficient-cause route makes no such concession — it asks the court to recognize that the appointment should not have been made in the first place. A party confident the original grounds were weak has reason to pursue this path rather than post a bond it does not think should be necessary.
What discharge actually accomplishes
Once the court is satisfied the appointment lacked sufficient cause and discharges the receiver, the receivership ends: the receiver's authority over the property or business stops, and control reverts to the party or parties who had it before the appointment. Discharge on this ground does not by itself resolve the underlying case between the parties — it only removes the receiver and the special custody that came with the appointment, leaving the main dispute to be decided on its own merits.