Dr. Dan 2010

Valley to stand out that proper art. 55 foresee exceptions, contained in its interpolated propositions I and II, in the cases where the assistant to prove that ' ' it are hindered to produce tests susceptible to influence in the sentence and was unaware of the existence of allegations or tests of that the attended one, for deceit or guilt, not if valeu' '. On this subject, Fredie Didier Jnior in the ones backwards an example: ' ' the notary who intervines as simple assistant in demand that she intends to nullify the writing publishes for cultivated it, in deceit reason, will not be able, later, in regressive demand filed a suit porventura, to argue the existence of deceit, premise that was taken in consideration in the sentence pronounced in first processo' '. 20 The same legal text if applies the litisconsorciais assistants, even so some authors they defend the idea of that its interpolated propositions if would apply only to the adhesive assistance, ' ' being the qualified assistant entirely subject to the judged thing, a time that is also subject of the reverse speeds in iudicium deducta' ' 21. Alexander Chamber understands that although the writing normative to speak in ' ' transit in julgado' ' , &#039 must be understood; ' effectiveness of interveno' ' , changing the focus of the quarrel of the question of the grounds of action, for the effectiveness or not of the intervention of third.

In this way, the legal device if would also apply the qualified assistant. ' ' It is applied, therefore, art. the 55 of the CPC to both species of assistance, since, as much in one as in the other the object of the process if keep unchanged, since the assistant does not modify the demand (not even when the assistance is qualified, therefore, as seen, the litisconsorcial assistant is not, properly, a joint party).