Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
conflicts with another provision of the restrictive covenants in this case and in Buckner. In the present case, the provision reads, [T]he owner or owners of any of the above land shall have the right to sue for and obtain an injunction, prohibitive or mandatory, to prevent the breach of or to enforce the observance of the restrictions, in addition to ordinary legal actions for damages, and failure to of the parties or owner or owners of any of the lot or lots ... to enforce any of the restrictions herein set forth at the time of its violation shall in no event, be deemed to be a waiver of a right to do so thereafter. [Emphasis added.] The covenants in Buckner contained substantially similar language. See Moore v. Zeller, 153 S.W.3d 262, 264 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2004, pet. denied) ; Stroud v. VBFSB Holding Corp., 917 S.W.2d 75,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that appellate court may judicially notice its own records
B. recognizing that the court may take judicial notice of its own docket
C. holding that lack of standing cannot be waived and may be raised for the first time by an appellate court on its own motion
D. holding that a trial court may take judicial cognizance of records on file in its own court punctuation omitted
E. holding that the appellate court may take judicial notice of its own records in related proceedings
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.