A motion for a new trial must contain every ground on which the moving party intends to rely in the trial court. Each error, including error in the giving or refusal to give specified instructions irregularity, abuse of discretion, misconduct, accident, surprise and other ground on which the moving party is relying to obtain a new trial, must be separately stated with specificity except that errors in the admission and exclusion of evidence may be asserted under the statement of errors in the admission and exclusion of evidence without such errors being separately stated. Where the moving party is relying on the Fourth or Fifth ground of Section 651 of Title 12, he must indicate whether the damages are excessive or inadequate or are too large or too small.

At the hearing on the motion or on appeal the movant may not rely on errors which are not fairly embraced in the specific grounds stated in the timely-filed motion for new trial. Ark. La. Gas Co. v. Travis, 1984 OK 33, 682 P.2d 225; Fed. Corp. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 13, 1978 OK CIV APP 55, 606 P.2d 1141. Lack of specificity in any ground of a timely-filed new-trial motion will be regarded as effectively cured where the record shows that, at the hearing on that motion, without any objection by the opposite party the movant precisely identified each error or point of law which is fairly comprised in the defective general ground or grounds of the motion. Horizons, Inc. v. Keo Leasing Co., 1984 OK 24, 681 P.2d 757; Huff v. Huff, 1984 OK 51, 687 P.2d 130.

A motion seeking reconsideration, re-examination, rehearing or vacation of a judgment or final order, which is filed within 10 days of the day such decision was rendered, may be regarded as a new trial motion. Horizons, Inc. v. Keo Leasing Co., 1984 OK 24, 681 P.2d 757. After expiration of the statutory time for filing a motion for new trial, a timely-filed motion may be amended to clarify the grounds originally set out but not to set up new and independent grounds. Ark. La. Gas Co. v. Travis, 1984 OK 33, 682 P.2d 225.

A motion, however styled, which is filed after the expiration of ten days following the decision is ineffective as a motion for new trial and will not extend appeal time. 12 O.S. § 653. Sellers v. Oklahoma Publ'g Co., 1984 OK 11, 687 P.2d 116; Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Smith, 1978 OK 99, 581 P.2d 31.

It is not necessary for the moving party to except to the rulings of the court either before, during, or after the trial, but he must have made known to the court the action which the court should take or the party's ground for objecting to the action of the court. See 12 O.S. § 631.