Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
on the confirmation order, the court is barred from revoking the confirmation order — even if the order was procured by fraud. For reasons that are amplified in point III, below, the statute bars revocation of the confirmation order in this case because an order satisfying the mandatory statutory predicate cannot be drafted. Another noteworthy feature of this statute is the relatively short time frame in which a cause of action may be filed. The request to revoke the confirmation order must come “before 180 days after the date of the entry of the order of confirmation.” Courts have been very strict in their adherence to this 180-day rule. See, e.g., BFP Invs., Inc. v. BFP Invs., Ltd., 150 Fed.Appx. 978, 979 (11th Cir.2005); In re Orange Tree Assocs., 961 F.2d 1445, 1447 (9th Cir.1992) ; In re Medical Analytics, Inc., 410 F.Supp.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding  1330a motion not now justiciable because not raised within 180 days of confirmation
B. holding  1330a motion untimely when filed over 180 days from confirmation
C. holding in the instant case although creditor obtained relief from the automatic stay it failed to object or appeal from the confirmation order accordingly creditor is bound by the confirmation order
D. holding that payment does not moot a confirmation request
E. holding that a request made within 180 days of a modified confirmation order  entered three months after the original confirmation order  but more than 180 days after the original confirmation order was timebarred
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.