Short answer. No. The rule is direct on this point: no action may be filed by or against a receiver without leave of the court which appointed him. You need that court's permission first, before you can properly file a case against the receiver, no matter how strong you believe your claim against him personally is.
What the law says
No action may be filed by or against a receiver without leave of the court which appointed him
Rule 59, Section 6 — General powers of receiver. Read the full provision →
The leave requirement applies both ways
The rule does not single out actions against the receiver — it covers actions by or against a receiver equally. Whether the receiver himself wants to sue someone in that official capacity, or you instead want to sue the receiver, the exact same requirement applies: leave of the court that appointed him has to be obtained first. Neither direction bypasses the court's gatekeeping role, since the court that created the receivership is the one positioned to weigh whether a new action against its own appointee is warranted.
Why a receiver is not treated like an ordinary defendant
A receiver holds and manages property under the control of the court that appointed him, exercising the powers the court itself granted — taking possession of property in controversy, collecting debts, compromising claims, and doing other acts the court authorizes. Because the receivership itself is a court-supervised arrangement, the court that actually created it retains close oversight over any litigation touching what the receiver is doing in that specific role, rather than leaving that oversight to whichever court a plaintiff happens to file in.
What leave of court means practically
Filing a case against a receiver without first securing that court's permission is not simply irregular — the rule frames it as something that may happen only with leave, meaning the permission is a precondition to the action being properly filed at all, not an afterthought you can seek once the case is already underway, once the receiver has already been served, or once the other side has already objected to the missing leave.
This is distinct from suing the underlying party or estate
This leave requirement is specific to actions against the receiver personally, in that capacity, over how he is exercising the powers the court gave him. It does not by itself describe every possible way a dispute over the underlying property, fund, or estate placed under receivership might otherwise be pursued through the receivership case itself — the leave requirement is specifically and narrowly about reaching the receiver directly, personally, through a brand new action of your own choosing.