Short answer. Yes. The rule expressly preserves the applicant's right to claim damages against a third-party claimant who filed a frivolous or plainly spurious claim, and it allows that to be pursued in the same action or in a separate one. The standard it sets, though, is a demanding one.
What the law says
prevent the applicant from claiming damages against a third-party claimant who filed a frivolous or plainly spurious claim, in the same or a separate action
Rule 60, Section 7 — Proceedings where property claimed by third person. Read the full provision →
The rule anticipates abuse of the third-party route
The third-party claim procedure is deliberately easy to start: a stranger to the case files an affidavit of title or right to possession and serves it on the sheriff, and the applicant must then post an indemnity bond to keep the seizure on foot. That accessibility is what makes it useful to a genuine owner — and what makes it available to someone who simply wants to make the writ expensive. The rule closes the loop by preserving a damages claim against a claimant whose claim was frivolous or plainly spurious.
The standard is high, and deliberately so
Note the words the rule chose. Not weak, not unsuccessful, but frivolous or plainly spurious. A third-party claimant who honestly believed he owned the property and turned out to be wrong has not obviously met that description. The threshold has to be high, because the alternative would deter real owners from coming forward at all — and the whole point of the affidavit procedure is that a person whose property has been seized in someone else's case can say so.
You have a choice of forum
The rule permits the claim in the same or a separate action. That is a practical choice rather than a technicality. Pursuing it in the same case keeps everything before a court already familiar with the seizure and the claim that was filed. A separate action may suit where the replevin case is close to resolution and you do not want the damages issue holding it up. Which is preferable depends on the state of your case, and is worth discussing with your lawyer rather than defaulting to one.
Consider the cost of the delay too
In the same sentence the rule preserves the right of the claimant or any third person to vindicate his claim to the property, so both directions are protected. If you are the applicant, keep a clear record of what the spurious claim actually cost — the bond you had to put up, the delay in recovering the property, and the state of the property while the seizure was held up. Damages have to be proved, and that evidence is easier gathered as it happens than reconstructed afterwards.