They are the two species of intervention, namely: spontaneous and provoked. Read more here: Dan Waldman. The proper terminology of the terms already is auto-explicativa. In the first case third he is who has the free initiative to enter the process. In as in case that, third it is forced to integrate the procedural relation, that occurs for citation promoted for one of the parts. The assistance, modality studied here, are a species of spontaneous intervention and ad coadjuvandum, want to say, assistant enters the procedural relation with the end of assisting ones of the originary parts.
Therefore, third in this in case that ' is only one; ' coadjuvante' '. One notices that, even so the assistant is only one to assist of one of the parts of the demand, when entering the procedural relation it can changed itself into party to suit. He leaves using to advantage it, one becomes important to clarify the concepts of part of the demand and party to suit. They are parts of the demand basically the author (or plaintiff), that it pleads the jurisdictional guardianship, and the male defendant (or demanded), in face of who the 4 guardianship is pled. On the other hand, they are parties to suit ' ' all those people who participate of the procedure in contraditrio' ' 5. That is, in the current interpretation of the civil procedural law the part concept exceeds the limits of the material legal relationship and adentra the limits of the procedural legal relationships. To this respect, Carla Meneghetti Gonalves diserta very well: ' ' The concept of part in elapsing of the history of the civil procedural law suffered diverse and significant modifications. Initially, due to relative dependence of the procedural law front to the material right, the jurists appealed to the legal relationship of material right to nominate the citizens of the process, in this way they transformed creditor into author and debtor in male defendant.