This condition must the same it the fact of the treatment given to these types of assistants be attributed to the unitary facultative joint parties, as already it was pointed out. The Solicitor of the City of Native of London, Sergio Verssimo de Oliveira Son, in the ones backwards the following writing: ' ' the litisconsorcial assistant can practise any act during the course of the process, it has mere procedural matrix, or same he directly reaches the material right in litigation, as the legal recognition of the order or the resignation. Even because, in being ' ' litisconsortes' ' , they submit it the made use one in art. 48 of the CPC: ' ' except for disposal in the opposite, the joint parties will be considered, in its relations with the adverce party, as litigant distinct; the acts and the omissions of one will not harm nor will benefit outros' ' 12 In this diapaso, ' ' if in one data process, intend the plaintiff to give up the action, being been necessary the assent of the male defendant, since this already offers its plea, and having qualified assistance, the assent of the assistant also will be demanded so that the waiver of an action is homologated by sentence, thus being able to produce its efeitos' ' 13. On the other hand, diverse condition occurs with the adhesive assistants, who for not being titular of the procedural legal relationship, act as mere assistant, being subordinated to the part the one that they attend, not being able to practise acts that oppose the orientaes adopted for the attended one. In such a way, the simple assistant cannot, for example, give up the action or to modify the order, a time that, these are acts attributed to the bearers of the material legal relationship. this well-known difference with respect to the performance of the two types of assistants, is presented one more time, when we take for object only paragraph of art.