¶1— This is an appeal from the Marshall Circuit Court. The appellees filed a motion for new trial on the grounds:
“1. That the decision for the Court is .contrary to law.”
¶2The court sustained the motion for new trial and the appellant filed assignment of errors which reads as follows:
“1. The Court erred in granting the motion of the appellees Esther L. O’Callaghan and Grace Ladd O’Callaghan for a new trial.
2. The Court erred in failing to state in writing his specific reasons for sustaining the motion for new trial.
3. Under the facts, circumstances and situation in this cause, there was no legal reason why the motion for a new trial should be granted nor can the granting of a motion for new trial be legally sustained by any specific reasons in writing, if same were given by the Trial Court.”
¶3The appellant filed the transcript which did not contain a bill of exceptions setting out the evidence. There is no reference to the evidence in the appellant’s brief.
¶4Appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal or affirm the judgment setting up that the appellants had failed to comply with the Supreme Court rule 2-5 with respect to the transcript and rule 2-17D with respect to the brief. Appellees supported their motion by brief. Appellants filed a brief in opposition to the motion of appellees. No application has been made to this court to correct the transcript by certiorari or to amend the brief. In making this comment we are not passing upon the question of whether or not such application would be timely.
¶5Propositions 2 and 3 of the appellant’s assignment of error present no question for our consideration. Even with an affirmative ruling on these propositions we would not have before us a transcript or brief which would properly present *242a question for our consideration under the motion for new trial and the assignment of errors.
¶6Our Supreme Court has held many times that where the question to be passed under the motion for new trial depends upon the evidence, and the evidence is not in the record there is nothing before the court and the judgment should be affirmed. Snider v. State of Indiana (1954), 233 Ind. 503, 121 N. E. 2d 731; Johnson v. State (1954), 233 Ind. 376, 119 N. E. 2d 717.
¶7There being nothing for our consideration the judgment is affirmed.
¶8Mote, J., not participating.
¶9On Rehearing
¶10— A re-examination of the record in the above action indicates that the record does not show a statement of reasons by the trial court for sustaining the motion for new trial.
¶11This court has previously held in Bailey v. Kain (1963), 134 Ind. App. 238, 187 N. E. 2d 366, that it is necessary that the trial judge certify in writing his specific reasons for sustaining a motion for new trial.
¶12In order to keep the record consistent and have it complete for our consideration we are holding in abeyance the ruling on the petition for rehearing pending receipt from the trial court of his certificate stating his specific reasons for sustaining the motion for new trial. The trial court is given until May 16, 1966, to prepare such certificate and forward the same to the Clerk of the Supreme and Appellate Courts to be included in the records of this case.
¶13Prime, C. J., Wickens and Faulconer, JJ., concur.
¶14— Appellant urges the following proposition:
“Where a case has been submitted to trial court; it has been tried without a jury and the trial court has had *243adequate time to consider his ruling, it is not proper for him to grant a new trial unless some new fact, item of evidence or a later ruling of an appellate tribunal is brought to his attention and he makes this clear in his written statement setting out his reasons.”
¶15There being no Bill of Exceptions in the transcript, the urged proposition would have to be as a matter of law.
¶16Rule 1-8 of the Supreme Court deals with the power of the court in .cases tried without a jury. Rule 1-8 does not so limit the power of the trial judge. In the case Kostas v. Kimbrough (1965), 137 Ind. App. 89, 205 N. E. 2d 170, this court reaffirmed the holding of Dorweiler v. Sinks (1958), 128 Ind. App. 532, 549; 148 N. E. 2d 570, in that Rule 1-8 gives the trial court the authority to change its decision with or without cause. Therefore, as a matter of law, the trial court could .change its decision.
¶17Petition for rehearing denied.
¶18Per Curiam.
¶19Wickens, P. J., concurs in a separate opinion.
¶20Mote, J., not participating.
¶21Appeal from the Marshall Circuit Court, The Honorable Roy Sheneman, Judge.