I don’t find it quite as odd as Sustel does.  I read {vIghro' tIQ vIje'ta'meH} as “In order for me to have (successfully) purchased the ancient cat”, although I probably wouldn’t have used an aspect suffix myself.  E.g. providing some context:   In order for me to have purchased the cat, I would have needed to use a credit card (which I didn’t have with me at the time).

It's not the perfective on the purpose clause I find odd, it's the situation that the sentence is describing that didn't seem to match the perfective.

In order to buy the ancient cat, I sacrificed all my money.

The sentence is being uttered at a point after the money is sacrificed — the wasting is completed. But in the act of sacrificing, the purpose was to buy, not to already have bought, a cat. Hence, vIghro' vIje'meH Huch vI'anmoHpu' (simplified for brevity).

Your sentence presents an irrealis: vIghro' vIje'ta'meH Huch vI'anmoHpu' In order to have bought the cat, I [would have] sacrificed money. I don't know that this is going to be interpreted as rrealis by Klingons; the only irrealis we really know anything about is formed with net jalchugh. You might get it by saying something like vIghro' vIje'ta' net jalchugh, vIje'meH Huch vI'anmoHpu' If I had bought the cat, to buy it I would have sacrificed money.

I think trying to put perfective on the purpose clause here is to attempt time travel, where my current action causes an already-completed action. If you can say vIghro' vIje'meH Huch vI'anmoHpu' to buy the cat I sacrificed money, and you apparently can, then what exactly does adding perfective to the purpose clause do? Maybe vIje'ta'meH means so that I close the deal?

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name